jiebi/CodeConvo huggingface dataset:
I would point out that that volume of unproductive traffic is probably a good reason to use something other than a key update to deal with the sender. A reminder that the underlying analysis assumes that packets are all 2^14 in size, which is the record size in TLS. This is ~10 times larger than typical MTU on the Internet and many QUIC packets might be smaller than that, so - at least for AES-GCM - recommending a 2^36 limit is more conservative than necessary. However, if we were to allow for different limits, we'd have to address the question of packet size, as a 2^16 byte packet will be used by some deployments. For ChaCha20+Poly1305, the only value that matters is the number of packets, so we avoid that question. Quoting from Felix's email for reference (with permission):
NAME Can I request that you review this analysis for correctness? I know that you had reservations about the claims here.
Another (simplier?) option could be to just update keys much more often. I've done performance tests with msquic on the effect of updating the key ~once per round trip. There was no noticeable effect on performance. In fact, more often than not, the key update perf tests happen to perform slightly better (within noise tolerance) than without key update. I'm not suggesting we advocate once a round trip or anything near that; more like every 2^20 packets (or 2^30 bytes?) sent or received (including failed decryptions). As I understand it, this is an ultra conservative number as far as protecting from any kind of attacks, and should be free as far as any performance impact on the connection. This also has the added benefit of exercising the key update scenario more often, which should hopefully improve interoperability of the feature.
I support a change like this, but I am not qualified to say what the thresholds should be. There certainly isn't a reason to push it to very high limits. This change would not break interoperability, so it's a good one. Banning CCM might break interoperability for someone, but I'm not too concerned, particularly if we can update all the browsers to not offer it.
A somewhat bigger concern is the lack of key update support in a lot of implementations: I read 9 of 15 servers as supporting it.
(Tentative) good news on CCM: Kenny identified a security analysis paper and it seems relatively simple to go from that to numbers. I am not personally concerned about support for key update. 9/15 isn't 15, but that doesn't bother me. It turns out to be a little fiddly to implement, so if people decide to drop connections that hit these limits instead, the effect isn't that bad. Of course, if you want to follow Nick's suggestion, that works too (I remember Dan Bernstein seriously suggesting a cipher that updated every record, back when I first proposed this scheme for TLS).
If we're looking for a new bound to initiate a key update, there's precedent in the SSH RFC to rekey after every 1 GB of data transferred. See
I should point out that my "9 of 15" figure is based on the interop matrix, where the client initiates an early update and the server responds. That is a different thing than a server initiating an update when required by the spec, which fewer than 9 servers might do.
Based on by Jonsson, I have calculated the bounds on the number of forgeries and encryptions for CCM. The numbers aren't great, but that probably doesn't matter much for the purposes to which CCM is generally put. (I'm using the notation from the here because that is easier to type than some of what is being used in other papers. For reference, q is the number of genuine encryptions, l is the length of each in 16 byte blocks, v is the number of forgeries, n is the key length in bits, t is the tag length in bits.) Jonsson puts the advantage an attacker has over a generic PRF at . If we assume the same numbers in the AEBounds paper for record/packet size, (this is for consistency, most QUIC packets will be much smaller, in the order of 2^7, but we might also go as high as 2^12; this being dictated by the MTU). For AES, .
To keep the advantage an attacker has to 2^-60 (to match the analysis in TLS), we therefore need to keep q to below 2^24.5. Somewhat unsurprisingly, that matches the numbers we have for AES-GCM. Jonsson puts the advantage for an attacker over a generic PRF at . As the first term is negligible even for large v (up to 2^64), we consider the second term alone and aim for a bound on the advantage of 2^-57 to match the analysis for other ciphers. That leaves us with . As q is already established to be 2^24.5, we can say that v should be limited to 2^25 (or if you want to be precise). (As a side note, for t=64, as in AEADAES128CCM8, the first term becomes relevant and our security bound limits the number of forgeries to 2^7, which is probably a bit limiting in practice. That's good justification for not enabling AEADAES128CCM_8 by default; though different applications might use a different target bound than 2^-57.) I'm an not a cryptographer. These papers all read like chicken-chicken-chicken. My calculations are not infallible either.
The shape of the bound seems plausible but I'll start a thread with the cryptographers to check everything
I reproduced Martin's analysis of CCM based on of the bounds by . (Myself not being an expert in producing such bounds, I found the second-level confirmation by Rogaway to be helpful.) I essentially agree with the numbers, except that --when following the same metric as the -- the advantage over an ideal PRP (instead of PRF) should be considered. This simply means losing a 1/2 factor in the bound: Confidentiality bound: yields an advantage of . I'd hence say it's fine to keep TLS 1.3's recommendation on sending max. full-sized records. Integrity bound: , hence yields an advantage of (matching the other analyses). Most importantly, I concur with Martin that AEADAES128CCM8 would need either much lower bounds or a different risk assessment: applying the same limit of would bring the advantage incurred through the bound up to .
Would it still be the best approach to define the same anti-forgery limit across all cipher suites, even if this means going down to ? Of course, I'm happy to discuss more with NAME !
Thanks for checking this NAME I was a little concerned about the PRP/PRF split, so I'm glad to have you correct me. I ultimately went with per-AEAD recommendations, and a lower limit for CCM. That's mainly to establish some sort of uniformity around 2^-60 and 2^-57. Even if those are basically arbitrary choices, at least they are defensible (I think!) and using them uniformly establishes the right expectations about what the standard is. I'm comfortable with specifying different limits for each AEAD in specifications. In practice, however, I expect that a far lower tolerance for forgery attempts. Assuming that these numbers work out, a review of the pull request would be greatly appreciated. If there are other relevant papers, I'm always happy to pull those in as well.
I realize that I didn't respond to NAME That advice applies to the limits that TLS specifies already; this issue is primarily about responding to forgeries. That said, 1G is pretty good advice. However what we've seen from this analysis that 1G results in a lower safety margin than TLS aims for. But it's close enough that if the AEAD is as good as the set we have here, you are probably OK. However, this does depend a lot on the specific AEAD. I'd be uncomfortable using so simple a guide in the general case.
NAME points out an error in my calculation. I had based my calculations on direct mapping of in the CCM analysis to in our calculations. That is, was the number of blocks in the message. But the analysis by Jonsson defines this as: ! The definition of Beta is the CCM function, so this function really reduces to 2 times the length of the message (in blocks), plus 1 (to account for the additional encryption). We can ignore the extra 1 as that is absorbed by the tag length. I'm updating the numbers in the PR. The result is another halving of the number of packets. NAME NAME it's pretty clear that I'm out of my depth here, so your input would be highly valued.
Good catch, yes, the double passing over the message requires a factor 2 here. (The AD a may also be up to 3 blocks if I understand the header format correctly, but I guess that's negligible compared to the conservative 2^10 message size.)
Good point about the AD. The AD - at least for QUIC - is always sent, so that fits in the same space. We don't necessarily need to double count the tiny number of blocks, but as you say, counting that only once yields a negligible difference. If we had a large AD that wasn't also transmitted, that would be different.
Agreed. To be precise: if I'm not mistaken the AD isn't counted at all right now ( accounts for the max. payload blocks), but of course the difference is still negligible as long as the AD is small.
Thanks for the edits!
Overall, this seems OK. Just using "InitKey" would be clear and less wordy.
I tried this and that led people to confuse and
Here's the Weekly Digest for : - - Last week 5 issues were created. Of these, 1 issues have been closed and 4 issues are still open. :greenheart: , by :greenheart: , by :greenheart: , by :greenheart: , by :heart: , by - - Last week, 9 pull requests were created, updated or merged. Last week, 3 pull requests were opened. :greenheart: , by :greenheart: , by :greenheart: , by Last week, 1 pull request was updated. :yellowheart: , by Last week, 5 pull requests were merged. :purpleheart: , by :purpleheart: , by :purpleheart: , by :purpleheart: , by :purpleheart: , by - - Last week there were 8 commits. :hammerandwrench: by :hammerandwrench: by :hammerandwrench: by :hammerandwrench: by :hammerandwrench: by :hammerandwrench: by :hammerandwrench: by :hammerandwrench: by - - Last week there were 2 contributors. :bustinsilhouette: :bustinsilhouette: - - Last week there was 1 stargazer. :star: You are the star! :star2: - - Last week there were no releases. - - That's all for last week, please :eyes: Watch and :star: Star the repository to receive next weekly updates. :smiley: You can also .
These keys are Client one-time use keys, so "UserInitKey" seems like a strange name.
I'm fine with ClientInitKey, as long as a client is not only a physical endpoint. Changes in the architecture doc should make this clear soon.
I'll just use a single example here because I think it makes it easier to express my point but the problems might be wider The URI template may include a variable, which is later defined in URL as . The value can only be between 0 through 255, I presume this is a decimal value. What is expected to happen if I send some bad values like: I presume that the recipient would reject the request with a bad path, by virtue of applying the requirement in section 4 that :path SHALL NOT be empty and following the expansion requirements in Section 3 and following those requirements on to Section 4.5. That's a lot of hops to get things right. Is there any easier way to present these?
Agreed, we need better text to specify server handling. For example, we don't currently explicitly that the server has to percent-decode these variables (but we say they have to be percent-encoded). When we add new text about how to extract the variables and decode them, let's also say that the server has to validate that they match requirements and has treat the request as malformed if they don't
NAME can you write up some text?
Appear to look good.
Editorial NiTs when reviewing the invariant text. These NiTs address readability issues, and do not intend to change the meaning of the text.
Is there an associated issue?
Thanks Gorry, these are all quite helpful. 1) I understand the acronyms DCID and SCID, but these aren't really expanded on first use in sect 5.1. 2) There's mention of "the high bit", but there doesn't seem to be any statement of bit order saying. Is it worth declaring network byte/bit order earlier in section 4? This also clarifies the placement of fields within a byte, which was basically assumed knowledge otherwise. 3) Personally, I don't think: "The length of the Destination Connection ID is not specified" is a great choice of words. Surely, this needs to be specified somewhere for a protocol instance to use it? This reads better as something like: The length of the Destination Connection ID is not encoded in packets with a short header and is not constrained by this specification. 4) The brackets here seem to point to connection IDs in general, not the DCID "(see Section 5.3)". Is it worth writing that as "Connection IDs are described in Section 5", rather than use brackets? The same is true for versions. 5) In section 5.3: "the wrong endpoint" is taken as the wrong transport endpoint, but some of our IP and subIP colleagues would use the term endpoint for other uses, so one insertion of "transport" would perhaps help? 6) In the appendix A, this: "QUIC forbids acknowledgments of packets" - still has me wondering what is actually intended to be understood, because the list of bullets is not guarenteed ... : /The last packet before a long period of quiescence might be assumed to contain an acknowledgment (it should be assumed that QUIC could allow acknowledgments of packets that only contain ACK frames)/ I'm not sure what to say here I think the combination of not... forbids threw me off the meaning. Changes proposed in
Thanks for changing SCID/DCID to "Source Connection ID" and "Destination Connection ID", that seems like a good change.
URL I have been reading v17 and sent some comments to the authors, that I summarize here: 1) - Regarding RPK, previous versions of the document had a more detailed explanation about RPK. For example, in version v06 you had "The Initiator and the Responder MAY use different types of credentials, e.g. one uses an RPK and the other uses a public key certificate.” So RPK is included as part of the definition of authentication credential. However, v17 may have a different meaning since it seems “credentials" is defined as follows: "EDHOC relies on COSE for identification of credentials (see Section 3.5.3), for example X.509 certificates [RFC5280], C509 certificates [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert], CWTs [RFC8392] and CWT Claims Sets (CCS) [RFC8392]. When the identified credential is a chain or a bag, the authentication credential CRED_x is just the end entity X.509 or C509 certificate / CWT. I assume RPK is also an authentication credential and this should be included in this text. A clarification would be worthy. 2) I assume it is possible that any two IoT devices can act as initiator but also as a responder, even between same two peers. It is the application which decides when to start EDHOC (initiator) in a particular case, correct? 3) It seems the EDHOC does not define any exchange for the key update (some sort of rekey). It seems an application at some point exchange some messages as "some event that triggered the key update.” Then the application call to EDHOC-KeyUpdate function to get a new PRK. Am I right? I am asking because looking at IKEv2, for example, and for the rekey, an exchange is required. Although it would add a little bit more complexity, wouldn’t it be sensical that EDHOC defines a 1 RTT to exchange a couple of nonces for the rekeying. Moreover, this function is defined in an Appendix. Is it mandatory to implement?
Yes. The document should talk about RPK a bit more as that is term that people might search for. Should be explained that CWT is the format EDHOC uses for raw public keys (RPK).
Hi all: I have been reading v17 and sent some comments to the authors, that I summarize here: 1) - Regarding RPK, previous versions of the document had a more detailed explanation about RPK. For example, in version v06 you had "The Initiator and the Responder MAY use different types of credentials, e.g. one uses an RPK and the other uses a public key certificate.” So RPK is included as part of the definition of authentication credential. However, v17 may have a different meaning since it seems “credentials" is defined as follows: "EDHOC relies on COSE for identification of credentials (see Section 3.5.3), for example X.509 certificates [RFC5280], C509 certificates [I-D.ietf-cose-cbor-encoded-cert], CWTs [RFC8392] and CWT Claims Sets (CCS) [RFC8392]. When the identified credential is a chain or a bag, the authentication credential CRED_x is just the end entity X.509 or C509 certificate / CWT. I assume RPK is also an authentication credential and this should be included in this text. A clarification would be worthy. 2) I assume it is possible that any two IoT devices can act as initiator but also as a responder, even between same two peers. It is the application which decides when to start EDHOC (initiator) in a particular case, correct? 3) It seems the EDHOC does not define any exchange for the key update (some sort of rekey). It seems an application at some point exchange some messages as "some event that triggered the key update.” Then the application call to EDHOC-KeyUpdate function to get a new PRK. Am I right? I am asking because looking at IKEv2, for example, and for the rekey, an exchange is required. Although it would add a little bit more complexity, wouldn’t it be sensical that EDHOC defines a 1 RTT to exchange a couple of nonces for the rekeying. Moreover, this function is defined in an Appendix. Is it mandatory to implement? Beyond these clarifications, I think the document is ready. Best Regards. Rafa Marin-Lopez, PhD Dept.
changed equivalence instances for designated and added the possibility of multiple entities so long as they are cooperating This is to address issue
I am not sure we need to introduce "Equivalence" nor to develop who is operating the resolvers - especially as many entities may be involved in the operation of a resolver. I am not sure we need to introduce Equivalence. If so I would propose the following text: OLD: "Equivalence" in this context means that the resolvers are operated by the same entity; for example, the resolvers are accessible on the same IP address, or there is a certificate that claims ownership over both resolvers. NEW: "Equivalence" in this context means that Encrypted and Unencrypted resolvers are either accessible on the same IP address, or there is a certificate that claims ownership over both resolvers. If Equivalence is not introduced - which I prefer -I would propose the following text: NEW: In this context the discovery process ensures that Encrypted and Unencrypted resolvers are either accessible on the same IP address, or there is a certificate that claims ownership over both resolvers.
I agree that we do not need to introduce "equivalence" in this document. It is a remnant of the DEER draft DDR is based on. Per WG discussion, we want to use the term "designation" to describe the relationship between the unencrypted resolver and the encrypted resolver to which the client is transferring. I'm editing accordingly. I have also added references to the possibility of multiple "entities" as that is definitely possible. (PR coming later tonight)
good.
In this image: ! It isn't very clear where messages originate and who gets to see them. In particular, it isn't clear where the TokenRequest originates (the Client) and whether the Attester gets to see it (¯(°_o)/¯).
That's a fair point. It should be clear that the TokenRequest comes from the Attester. I wonder if we also somehow need to illustrate that there's a trust relationship between the Attester and Issuer here. Something to at least imply that the Attester is either implicitly trusted to do attestation, or, perhaps in future versions of Privacy Pass, attestation proofs are sent directly to the Issuer.
Move diagram to section 3 (architecture). Also move much of the second intro paragraph down. Add more text about the actual steps to section 3, such as a numbered list
In here, introduce the basic privacy premise for how the redemption and issuance contexts are separated
The architecture references [AUTHSCHEME] for key concepts far more than I expected. For instance: Or: Can the architecture define the messages in their own right, then point to [AUTHSCHEME] for example implementations?
Is the suggestion here to describe -- conceptually -- what Token and TokenChallenges are in the architecture document? If so, that seems quite reasonable.
Yeah. An architecture is most useful if you don't have to dig into the details to understand it and those references are somewhat critical to comprehension.
Partially addresses . (We also need to decide if/how to allow a particular PA protocol to use multiple helpers for privacy.) Right now, multiple helpers are used for redundancy in case one of the helpers dropped out. This removes this mechanism from the core protocol.
Squashed and rebased.
That's a good idea,
Hmm... Do we need to decide. Per our discussion on Wednesday, if the clients learn this out of band then we won't need this field at all because clients will get it separately and helpers don't need to know what the other helpers are, right?
My takeaway is that the parameters must contain all input needed to run the protocol, including the helpers. And all of this is configured out of band. You could punt everything except for the cryptographic goop out of the parameters structure, forcing clients to know the leader and helper and get their public keys out of band as well, which would be fine. It's just different. I think both work just fine, but I lean towards having params specify everything. It just seems simpler to me. That said... making public key discovery part of the client upload protocol here is more complex, I think. So, .
Squashed.
LGTM. Multiple helpers "for privacy" seems like it's inherently a per-protocol thing (Prio supports it, Hits does not). If and when we decide to address that, should we move this to the protocol-specific slot in PAParam?
From an interop discussion with NAME and NAME HTTP/1.1 the presence of a Host header: If no Host header is present, the section on describes how you determine what host is being asked for, ending with "guess" if it's an HTTP/1.0 request. HTTP/2 says that you generate an pseudo-header if sending direct-to-H2 and carry through the Host header if you're relaying HTTP/1.1. There is no discussion about what to do with an HTTP/1.0 (or 0.9) request being relayed over HTTP/2, which wouldn't have a Host header; you're neither required to generate or send one, even an empty one, nor are you given guidance about how to figure it out. HTTP/3 carries forward the H2 language (currently by reference, and explicitly after ). Do we want to have some guidance here? Or does this issue instead belong in URL to move some of the existing guidance to be HTTP version-independent? (NAME
NAME Thank you for looking into the problem. Regarding if (or how) we should handle the issue, I think my weak preference goes to having one rule that applies to both HTTP/2 and HTTP/3. That would be less surprising to the users, and would also be helpful to implementations. It could well be the case for an HTTP server to have a common logic of handing pseudo headers (or lack of) between HTTP/2 and HTTP/3.
Host is an HTTP/1.x header field (it was just late to the party), so HTTP/1.0 includes it as an extension. And that requirement is specific to HTTP/1.1, so would theoretically not apply to HTTP/1.2 (and that was intended): it was a short term requirement imposed by the IESG because they wanted to require deployment and didn't understand that it was already deployed. In general, I don't understand why ":authority" exists (as opposed to always using ":host"), but I think the HTTP requirement is simply that the identifying data must be present somewhere in the request.
":authority" exists for the purpose of always transporting the equivalent of the , with ":scheme" and ":path" transporting the rest. It's mostly a consistency thing, I think. If you have a "Host" header instead, that's acceptable, too.