Re: [TLS] Security review of TLS1.3 0-RTT

Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com> Tue, 23 May 2017 23:15 UTC

Return-Path: <bkaduk@akamai.com>
X-Original-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: tls@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B2761287A5 for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:15:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=akamai.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 k9YuVLZVEuxJ for <tls@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com (mx0b-00190b01.pphosted.com [IPv6:2620:100:9005:57f::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id AB362127867 for <tls@ietf.org>; Tue, 23 May 2017 16:15:42 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from pps.filterd (m0050102.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v4NNDDSM020370; Wed, 24 May 2017 00:15:38 +0100
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=akamai.com; h=subject : to : cc : references : from : message-id : date : mime-version : in-reply-to : content-type; s=jan2016.eng; bh=ENzEyH08lHuwpgRBNn98zpibxGAUHojEWHLWZjdBNXo=; b=UP0ivAl6eI2hWgE/C2m78WdpgE42P0v4viaYsfsH/2MYYIdFVjPGfIsPK+miF8vGTuGP mysmRUIoOgXs+tUU4TVTz4sep76TzG3Z8NVAKaE/PM3tr5WTZRuBEi0ZaT9z8CiIjnwX 8v0c+yz0yVuKABmNPxpPo36NvDoBaU+aqXv4WVxqq67/Eo9o6yRTJdQDGsMOTtb04xSd i0LXn4AlwBxBqUsMFsb6ipSGurT9MmBw3ssJJWc9GZA+PiP+T2A4ELJ3Zp1AsDGueou3 fEIphyChAjJlSU6uHJf3pn6ELYGfEnMLlcRKoW023V3D/mEf8soHmmLE8UO2UYYS9Ssg Kg==
Received: from prod-mail-ppoint3 ([96.6.114.86]) by m0050102.ppops.net-00190b01. with ESMTP id 2amtyk15e2-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT); Wed, 24 May 2017 00:15:38 +0100
Received: from pps.filterd (prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com [127.0.0.1]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id v4NN684u007294; Tue, 23 May 2017 19:15:38 -0400
Received: from prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com ([172.27.17.39]) by prod-mail-ppoint3.akamai.com with ESMTP id 2ajh4vekkx-1; Tue, 23 May 2017 19:15:38 -0400
Received: from [172.19.17.86] (bos-lpczi.kendall.corp.akamai.com [172.19.17.86]) by prod-mail-relay14.akamai.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 981C580052; Tue, 23 May 2017 17:15:37 -0600 (MDT)
To: Ilari Liusvaara <ilariliusvaara@welho.com>, Colm MacCárthaigh <colm@allcosts.net>
Cc: "tls@ietf.org" <tls@ietf.org>
References: <CAAF6GDcKZj9F-eKAeVj0Uw4aX_EgQ4DuJczL4=fsaFyG9Yjcgw@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBNcnW9zEPZ4mEje1_ejR3npNFz65rw-6qUPn7cQt1Nz9w@mail.gmail.com> <CAAF6GDe1_ih1aUShrzAHUuTzbLx6+0BdVexpGnq90RZsST8GvA@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBOX5NXuhgfap2S0naO9PFXv+K-+fZVPbgck6yciVnrYbQ@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBPuOupLTNKOtuCgOjYNdiuw571HM-pq1vNZz_8x-XX5mg@mail.gmail.com> <CABcZeBMqALJ10cU7FMUhv8k5Q=tw3yu1-5pdrKzOBM3=g5PHJw@mail.gmail.com> <20170519095316.GA30080@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CAAF6GDeuRMZx9MRynrxMp1fCvRS2jjr0vcqt0R89cJEkD6u=rQ@mail.gmail.com> <20170519184051.GA31741@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi> <CAAF6GDcP3_+WOB1xsc7JecpCo2-MfeuHgkN7PVrUiLweeurv2g@mail.gmail.com> <20170520093347.GB32428@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
From: Benjamin Kaduk <bkaduk@akamai.com>
Message-ID: <c0765713-ba46-ad04-ff64-ca339d3644a4@akamai.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 18:15:37 -0500
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.1.1
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20170520093347.GB32428@LK-Perkele-V2.elisa-laajakaista.fi>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------6E663C954183D60E2BE03587"
Content-Language: en-US
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-23_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 spamscore=0 suspectscore=0 malwarescore=0 phishscore=0 adultscore=0 bulkscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705230117
X-Proofpoint-Virus-Version: vendor=fsecure engine=2.50.10432:, , definitions=2017-05-23_10:, , signatures=0
X-Proofpoint-Spam-Details: rule=notspam policy=default score=0 priorityscore=1501 malwarescore=0 suspectscore=0 phishscore=0 bulkscore=0 spamscore=0 clxscore=1011 lowpriorityscore=0 impostorscore=0 adultscore=0 classifier=spam adjust=0 reason=mlx scancount=1 engine=8.0.1-1703280000 definitions=main-1705230118
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/tls/4GVKrWCPq5exCPrwwQC6JZ3eixE>
Subject: Re: [TLS] Security review of TLS1.3 0-RTT
X-BeenThere: tls@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: "This is the mailing list for the Transport Layer Security working group of the IETF." <tls.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/tls/>
List-Post: <mailto:tls@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/tls>, <mailto:tls-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 23 May 2017 23:15:44 -0000

On 05/20/2017 04:33 AM, Ilari Liusvaara wrote:
>
> I meant what prevents the (say 10 second) windows from stacking up into
> (say 20 second windows) if 0-RTT is used on multiple hops (client-
> middlebox and middlebox-server)?
>
> One can not assume that the client has knowledge of any middlebox on
> the path (e.g. CDNs in HTTP are in general invisible to the client).
>

I think the attacker has to delay sending the client's 0-RTT to the
middlebox for the 10-second window if it wants to get the 20-second
delay overall (assuming the middlebox does at-most-once properly), at
which point the client would have a sense that something fishy might be
going on.  Though, that still doesn't give the client a hard bound on
the delay, I suppose.

-Ben