Re: Wrong level protection ACKs: why not an error

Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com> Tue, 29 May 2018 19:41 UTC

Return-Path: <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9D92912FA8B for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:41:32 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.61
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.61 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_DKIMWL_WL_MED=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id GTxuSIahBOGb for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:41:31 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-qk0-x233.google.com (mail-qk0-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:400d:c09::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D3EC512FA85 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-qk0-x233.google.com with SMTP id h7-v6so5333662qkm.0 for <quic@ietf.org>; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=litespeedtech-com.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:mail-followup-to:references :mime-version:content-disposition:content-transfer-encoding :in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=DCxi0Nv5xdf0phY3+irhW0eP6WK9BVpCvtSjrIBeHBU=; b=dr+Hc8Pggujltq24jaFSrj+7DrvNHg2pyBY5jERHz8W8cviZTx7helkDnBWyvlLMKO mmds7tHydYAcFsl+X0lAhBZsgjsgKLixR/lzkAO3wJ3VVVBYCJNJmIjfhGJfh/GISTXk cfnljz/4qwkvFyjBhJmfUiG8YMs+Dh2vUxXLFkURH+ZZ9qWPXXMYo2Vvx2Rtz01oTSp/ ejWTdY7srSLdxly+wy1oTJxOnuGu3Nug/eNUkJ2ZTmLbYDEp14KkhGW+jD0z2QCtdYX9 lBDmSd14CzSkI8CNkGIVL2WDLG8mH541hc5Zr216TkuXhYt0DszNkMi80LrUk1M9gRjN urCA==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id :mail-followup-to:references:mime-version:content-disposition :content-transfer-encoding:in-reply-to:user-agent; bh=DCxi0Nv5xdf0phY3+irhW0eP6WK9BVpCvtSjrIBeHBU=; b=C//MpGhoFfvkNDVYbowJ16Vm6/JLI7i56csIU0ThXJcCAI1CQlWWHG7WDe2LBnczGn Ayshf/QWjPP9jKbY34blhmOlh038efwqp6z3IGfvw+cxjeRQjk4NE+j3z5gZo1hWmR0A Gpu3LT2cdAOb987VG8TipdZRGHUL4WfyrGFDgWqYfLPVa+N2JoBY1Qx4B1/NwHGwDeBC KCyvHY0yoQ4CEOrF04g1QfaI7CdiN3EU0bV8cGAsJ81Fk2uIeLWaM1EjaPG28q8aV3g3 Sl/Pmh6/Fn0ejNFrNMhwU39K/Bs8mtxe8uId0GEXEn0Z7bmQo8srE9iAr30T5OnD0GBu Wf4w==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALKqPwduasK8TFv7MTCz6Fjodu5clG4UIbE730NyuGrN+0a0jeCtS2w2 CIrDdbxAF7tXOJdCLrmidDh+dpPO
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADUXVKKg/3XlUsZOIXI3xtLEhygNfxdoHeq9mPsV+Po8unSyTrzuWmAI1H6hl0zHUigeT7WD+ZWrQQ==
X-Received: by 2002:a37:6d07:: with SMTP id i7-v6mr17010462qkc.208.1527622890000; Tue, 29 May 2018 12:41:30 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ubuntu-dmitri (ool-2f1636b6.static.optonline.net. [47.22.54.182]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id v22-v6sm5121950qtg.46.2018.05.29.12.41.28 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Tue, 29 May 2018 12:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 15:41:25 -0400
From: Dmitri Tikhonov <dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com>
To: Mikkel =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fahn=F8e_J=F8rgensen?= <mikkelfj@gmail.com>
Cc: IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Wrong level protection ACKs: why not an error
Message-ID: <20180529194124.GB2500@ubuntu-dmitri>
Mail-Followup-To: Mikkel =?iso-8859-1?Q?Fahn=F8e_J=F8rgensen?= <mikkelfj@gmail.com>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>
References: <20180529193427.GA2500@ubuntu-dmitri> <CAN1APdcpMmVVDydLNErfJKfa6_fH8LPWfNzaupi_Kxx+qA-Jxw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <CAN1APdcpMmVVDydLNErfJKfa6_fH8LPWfNzaupi_Kxx+qA-Jxw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/y-1TCzv8ipNCNlwle_ZxIhrhI_0>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 29 May 2018 19:41:33 -0000

I see.  Thank you!

  - Dmitri.

On Tue, May 29, 2018 at 12:38:40PM -0700, Mikkel Fahnøe Jørgensen wrote:
> Anything in early handshake it is vulnerable to attacks.
> It is better to drop ill-formed packets than allowing them to interrupt the
> handshake since you can’t be sure who the sender is.
> 
> 
> On 29 May 2018 at 21.35.01, Dmitri Tikhonov (dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com)
> wrote:
> 
> The Draft states:
> 
> A packet that is not protected and claims to acknowledge a packet
> number that was sent with packet protection is not valid. An
> unprotected packet that carries acknowledgments for protected packets
> MUST be discarded in its entirety.
> 
> This seems odd. Why is this not a connection error? Do we expect
> the peer not to be able to construct a valid ACK?
> 
> - Dmitri.