| draft-ietf-quic-tls-02.txt | draft-ietf-quic-tls-03.txt | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| QUIC M. Thomson, Ed. | QUIC M. Thomson, Ed. | |||
| Internet-Draft Mozilla | Internet-Draft Mozilla | |||
| Intended status: Standards Track S. Turner, Ed. | Intended status: Standards Track S. Turner, Ed. | |||
| Expires: September 14, 2017 sn3rd | Expires: November 22, 2017 sn3rd | |||
| March 13, 2017 | May 21, 2017 | |||
| Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) to Secure QUIC | Using Transport Layer Security (TLS) to Secure QUIC | |||
| draft-ietf-quic-tls-02 | draft-ietf-quic-tls-03 | |||
| Abstract | Abstract | |||
| This document describes how Transport Layer Security (TLS) can be | This document describes how Transport Layer Security (TLS) is used to | |||
| used to secure QUIC. | secure QUIC. | |||
| Note to Readers | Note to Readers | |||
| Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group | Discussion of this draft takes place on the QUIC working group | |||
| mailing list (quic@ietf.org), which is archived at | mailing list (quic@ietf.org), which is archived at | |||
| https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic . | https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/search/?email_list=quic . | |||
| Working Group information can be found at https://github.com/quicwg ; | Working Group information can be found at https://github.com/quicwg ; | |||
| source code and issues list for this draft can be found at | source code and issues list for this draft can be found at | |||
| https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/labels/tls . | https://github.com/quicwg/base-drafts/labels/tls . | |||
| skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶ | skipping to change at page 1, line 42 ¶ | |||
| Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering | |||
| Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | Task Force (IETF). Note that other groups may also distribute | |||
| working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | working documents as Internet-Drafts. The list of current Internet- | |||
| Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | Drafts is at http://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/. | |||
| Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months | |||
| and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any | |||
| time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | time. It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference | |||
| material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | material or to cite them other than as "work in progress." | |||
| This Internet-Draft will expire on September 14, 2017. | This Internet-Draft will expire on November 22, 2017. | |||
| Copyright Notice | Copyright Notice | |||
| Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | Copyright (c) 2017 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the | |||
| document authors. All rights reserved. | document authors. All rights reserved. | |||
| This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal | |||
| Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | Provisions Relating to IETF Documents | |||
| (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | (http://trustee.ietf.org/license-info) in effect on the date of | |||
| publication of this document. Please review these documents | publication of this document. Please review these documents | |||
| skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶ | skipping to change at page 2, line 23 ¶ | |||
| described in the Simplified BSD License. | described in the Simplified BSD License. | |||
| Table of Contents | Table of Contents | |||
| 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | 1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 | |||
| 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 2. Notational Conventions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | 3. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 | |||
| 3.1. TLS Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | 3.1. TLS Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 | |||
| 3.2. TLS Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | 3.2. TLS Handshake . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 | |||
| 4. TLS Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | 4. TLS Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 4.1. Handshake and Setup Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 | 4.1. Handshake and Setup Sequence . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 | |||
| 4.2. Interface to TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.2. Interface to TLS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 4.2.1. Handshake Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | 4.2.1. Handshake Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 | |||
| 4.2.2. Source Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.2.2. Source Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 | |||
| 4.2.3. Key Ready Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | 4.2.3. Key Ready Events . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 | |||
| 4.2.4. Secret Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4.2.4. Secret Export . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 4.2.5. TLS Interface Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | 4.2.5. TLS Interface Summary . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 | |||
| 4.3. TLS Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.3. TLS Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 4.4. ClientHello Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | 4.4. ClientHello Size . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 4.5. Peer Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.5. Peer Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 | |||
| 4.6. TLS Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 4.6. TLS Errors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 5. QUIC Packet Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | 5. QUIC Packet Protection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 5.1. Installing New Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.1. Installing New Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 | |||
| 5.2. QUIC Key Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.2. QUIC Key Expansion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 5.2.1. 0-RTT Secret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | 5.2.1. 0-RTT Secret . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 5.2.2. 1-RTT Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 | 5.2.2. 1-RTT Secrets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15 | |||
| 5.2.3. Packet Protection Key and IV . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | 5.2.3. Packet Protection Key and IV . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 5.3. QUIC AEAD Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | 5.3. QUIC AEAD Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 | |||
| 5.4. Packet Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 5.4. Packet Numbers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 | |||
| 5.5. Receiving Protected Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | 5.5. Receiving Protected Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 6. Key Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | 5.6. Packet Number Gaps . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 6.1. Packet Protection for the TLS Handshake . . . . . . . . . 20 | 6. Unprotected Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 6.1.1. Initial Key Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | 6.1. Integrity Check Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 | |||
| 6.1.2. Retransmission and Acknowledgment of Unprotected | 6.2. The 64-bit FNV-1a Algorithm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | |||
| 7. Key Phases . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 | ||||
| 7.1. Packet Protection for the TLS Handshake . . . . . . . . . 21 | ||||
| 7.1.1. Initial Key Transitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 | ||||
| 7.1.2. Retransmission and Acknowledgment of Unprotected | ||||
| Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | |||
| 6.2. Key Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 | 7.2. Key Update . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 | |||
| 7. Client Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | ||||
| 7.1. HelloRetryRequest Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . 24 | ||||
| 7.2. NewSessionTicket Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | ||||
| 7.3. Address Validation Token Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | ||||
| 8. Pre-handshake QUIC Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | 8. Client Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 8.1. Unprotected Packets Prior to Handshake Completion . . . . 27 | 8.1. HelloRetryRequest Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . 24 | |||
| 8.1.1. STREAM Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.1.1. Stateless Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 | |||
| 8.1.2. ACK Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | 8.1.2. Sending HelloRetryRequest . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 8.1.3. WINDOW_UPDATE Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | 8.2. NewSessionTicket Address Validation . . . . . . . . . . . 26 | |||
| 8.1.4. Denial of Service with Unprotected Packets . . . . . 28 | 8.3. Address Validation Token Integrity . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 8.2. Use of 0-RTT Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 | 9. Pre-handshake QUIC Messages . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 | |||
| 8.3. Receiving Out-of-Order Protected Frames . . . . . . . . . 29 | 9.1. Unprotected Packets Prior to Handshake Completion . . . . 28 | |||
| 9. QUIC-Specific Additions to the TLS Handshake . . . . . . . . 30 | 9.1.1. STREAM Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 9.1. Protocol and Version Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | 9.1.2. ACK Frames . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 | |||
| 9.2. QUIC Transport Parameters Extension . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 9.1.3. Updates to Data and Stream Limits . . . . . . . . . . 29 | |||
| 9.3. Priming 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | 9.1.4. Denial of Service with Unprotected Packets . . . . . 29 | |||
| 10. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 9.2. Use of 0-RTT Keys . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 10.1. Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 9.3. Receiving Out-of-Order Protected Frames . . . . . . . . . 30 | |||
| 10.2. Peer Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | 10. QUIC-Specific Additions to the TLS Handshake . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
| 11. Error codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 10.1. Protocol and Version Negotiation . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
| 12. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 10.2. QUIC Transport Parameters Extension . . . . . . . . . . 31 | |||
| 13. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 10.3. Priming 0-RTT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 13.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | 11. Security Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 | |||
| 13.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | 11.1. Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | 11.2. Peer Denial of Service . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | 12. Error codes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 | |||
| Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | 13. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
| C.1. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-01: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | 14. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
| C.2. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-00: . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | 14.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34 | |||
| C.3. Since draft-thomson-quic-tls-01: . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | 14.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 | |||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | Appendix A. Contributors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | |||
| Appendix B. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
| Appendix C. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
| C.1. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-02 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
| C.2. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 | ||||
| C.3. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | ||||
| C.4. Since draft-thomson-quic-tls-01 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | ||||
| Authors' Addresses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 | ||||
| 1. Introduction | 1. Introduction | |||
| QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT] provides a multiplexed transport. When used | This document describes how QUIC [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is secured using | |||
| for HTTP [RFC7230] semantics [QUIC-HTTP] it provides several key | Transport Layer Security (TLS) version 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]. TLS | |||
| advantages over HTTP/1.1 [RFC7230] or HTTP/2 [RFC7540] over TCP | 1.3 provides critical latency improvements for connection | |||
| [RFC0793]. | establishment over previous versions. Absent packet loss, most new | |||
| connections can be established and secured within a single round | ||||
| This document describes how QUIC can be secured using Transport Layer | trip; on subsequent connections between the same client and server, | |||
| Security (TLS) version 1.3 [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]. TLS 1.3 provides | the client can often send application data immediately, that is, | |||
| critical latency improvements for connection establishment over | using a zero round trip setup. | |||
| previous versions. Absent packet loss, most new connections can be | ||||
| established and secured within a single round trip; on subsequent | ||||
| connections between the same client and server, the client can often | ||||
| send application data immediately, that is, using a zero round trip | ||||
| setup. | ||||
| This document describes how the standardized TLS 1.3 can act a | This document describes how the standardized TLS 1.3 acts a security | |||
| security component of QUIC. The same design could work for TLS 1.2, | component of QUIC. The same design could work for TLS 1.2, though | |||
| though few of the benefits QUIC provides would be realized due to the | few of the benefits QUIC provides would be realized due to the | |||
| handshake latency in versions of TLS prior to 1.3. | handshake latency in versions of TLS prior to 1.3. | |||
| 2. Notational Conventions | 2. Notational Conventions | |||
| The words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", and "MAY" are used in this | The words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "SHOULD", and "MAY" are used in this | |||
| document. It's not shouting; when they are capitalized, they have | document. It's not shouting; when they are capitalized, they have | |||
| the special meaning defined in [RFC2119]. | the special meaning defined in [RFC2119]. | |||
| This document uses the terminology established in [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. | This document uses the terminology established in [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. | |||
| skipping to change at page 5, line 29 ¶ | skipping to change at page 5, line 29 ¶ | |||
| +------------+ / / | +------------+ / / | |||
| | QUIC | / / | | QUIC | / / | |||
| | Packet |-------- Get Secret -------' / | | Packet |-------- Get Secret -------' / | |||
| | Protection |<-------- Secret -----------' | | Protection |<-------- Secret -----------' | |||
| +------------+ | +------------+ | |||
| Figure 1: QUIC and TLS Interactions | Figure 1: QUIC and TLS Interactions | |||
| The initial state of a QUIC connection has packets exchanged without | The initial state of a QUIC connection has packets exchanged without | |||
| any form of protection. In this state, QUIC is limited to using | any form of protection. In this state, QUIC is limited to using | |||
| stream 1 and associated packets. Stream 1 is reserved for a TLS | stream 0 and associated packets. Stream 0 is reserved for a TLS | |||
| connection. This is a complete TLS connection as it would appear | connection. This is a complete TLS connection as it would appear | |||
| when layered over TCP; the only difference is that QUIC provides the | when layered over TCP; the only difference is that QUIC provides the | |||
| reliability and ordering that would otherwise be provided by TCP. | reliability and ordering that would otherwise be provided by TCP. | |||
| At certain points during the TLS handshake, keying material is | At certain points during the TLS handshake, keying material is | |||
| exported from the TLS connection for use by QUIC. This keying | exported from the TLS connection for use by QUIC. This keying | |||
| material is used to derive packet protection keys. Details on how | material is used to derive packet protection keys. Details on how | |||
| and when keys are derived and used are included in Section 5. | and when keys are derived and used are included in Section 5. | |||
| This arrangement means that some TLS messages receive redundant | ||||
| protection from both the QUIC packet protection and the TLS record | ||||
| protection. These messages are limited in number; the TLS connection | ||||
| is rarely needed once the handshake completes. | ||||
| 3.1. TLS Overview | 3.1. TLS Overview | |||
| TLS provides two endpoints a way to establish a means of | TLS provides two endpoints with a way to establish a means of | |||
| communication over an untrusted medium (that is, the Internet) that | communication over an untrusted medium (that is, the Internet) that | |||
| ensures that messages they exchange cannot be observed, modified, or | ensures that messages they exchange cannot be observed, modified, or | |||
| forged. | forged. | |||
| TLS features can be separated into two basic functions: an | TLS features can be separated into two basic functions: an | |||
| authenticated key exchange and record protection. QUIC primarily | authenticated key exchange and record protection. QUIC primarily | |||
| uses the authenticated key exchange provided by TLS but provides its | uses the authenticated key exchange provided by TLS but provides its | |||
| own packet protection. | own packet protection. | |||
| The TLS authenticated key exchange occurs between two entities: | The TLS authenticated key exchange occurs between two entities: | |||
| client and server. The client initiates the exchange and the server | client and server. The client initiates the exchange and the server | |||
| responds. If the key exchange completes successfully, both client | responds. If the key exchange completes successfully, both client | |||
| and server will agree on a secret. TLS supports both pre-shared key | and server will agree on a secret. TLS supports both pre-shared key | |||
| (PSK) and Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchanges. PSK is the basis for | (PSK) and Diffie-Hellman (DH) key exchanges. PSK is the basis for | |||
| 0-RTT; the latter provides perfect forward secrecy (PFS) when the DH | 0-RTT; the latter provides perfect forward secrecy (PFS) when the DH | |||
| keys are destroyed. | keys are destroyed. | |||
| After completing the TLS handshake, the client will have learned and | After completing the TLS handshake, the client will have learned and | |||
| authenticated an identity for the server and the server is optionally | authenticated an identity for the server and the server is optionally | |||
| able to learn and authenticate an identity for the client. TLS | able to learn and authenticate an identity for the client. TLS | |||
| supports X.509 certificate-based authentication [RFC5280] for both | supports X.509 [RFC5280] certificate-based authentication for both | |||
| server and client. | server and client. | |||
| The TLS key exchange is resistent to tampering by attackers and it | The TLS key exchange is resistent to tampering by attackers and it | |||
| produces shared secrets that cannot be controlled by either | produces shared secrets that cannot be controlled by either | |||
| participating peer. | participating peer. | |||
| 3.2. TLS Handshake | 3.2. TLS Handshake | |||
| TLS 1.3 provides two basic handshake modes of interest to QUIC: | TLS 1.3 provides two basic handshake modes of interest to QUIC: | |||
| o A full, 1-RTT handshake in which the client is able to send | o A full 1-RTT handshake in which the client is able to send | |||
| application data after one round trip and the server immediately | application data after one round trip and the server immediately | |||
| after receiving the first handshake message from the client. | after receiving the first handshake message from the client. | |||
| o A 0-RTT handshake in which the client uses information it has | o A 0-RTT handshake in which the client uses information it has | |||
| previously learned about the server to send immediately. This | previously learned about the server to send application data | |||
| data can be replayed by an attacker so it MUST NOT carry a self- | immediately. This application data can be replayed by an attacker | |||
| contained trigger for any non-idempotent action. | so it MUST NOT carry a self-contained trigger for any non- | |||
| idempotent action. | ||||
| A simplified TLS 1.3 handshake with 0-RTT application data is shown | A simplified TLS 1.3 handshake with 0-RTT application data is shown | |||
| in Figure 2, see [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] for more options and details. | in Figure 2, see [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] for more options and details. | |||
| Client Server | Client Server | |||
| ClientHello | ClientHello | |||
| (0-RTT Application Data) --------> | (0-RTT Application Data) --------> | |||
| ServerHello | ServerHello | |||
| {EncryptedExtensions} | {EncryptedExtensions} | |||
| skipping to change at page 7, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 7, line 21 ¶ | |||
| relevant to this document: | relevant to this document: | |||
| o The server can respond to a ClientHello with a HelloRetryRequest, | o The server can respond to a ClientHello with a HelloRetryRequest, | |||
| which adds an additional round trip prior to the basic exchange. | which adds an additional round trip prior to the basic exchange. | |||
| This is needed if the server wishes to request a different key | This is needed if the server wishes to request a different key | |||
| exchange key from the client. HelloRetryRequest is also used to | exchange key from the client. HelloRetryRequest is also used to | |||
| verify that the client is correctly able to receive packets on the | verify that the client is correctly able to receive packets on the | |||
| address it claims to have (see [QUIC-TRANSPORT]). | address it claims to have (see [QUIC-TRANSPORT]). | |||
| o A pre-shared key mode can be used for subsequent handshakes to | o A pre-shared key mode can be used for subsequent handshakes to | |||
| avoid public key operations. This is the basis for 0-RTT data, | reduce the number of public key operations. This is the basis for | |||
| even if the remainder of the connection is protected by a new | 0-RTT data, even if the remainder of the connection is protected | |||
| Diffie-Hellman exchange. | by a new Diffie-Hellman exchange. | |||
| 4. TLS Usage | 4. TLS Usage | |||
| QUIC reserves stream 1 for a TLS connection. Stream 1 contains a | QUIC reserves stream 0 for a TLS connection. Stream 0 contains a | |||
| complete TLS connection, which includes the TLS record layer. Other | complete TLS connection, which includes the TLS record layer. Other | |||
| than the definition of a QUIC-specific extension (see Section-TBD), | than the definition of a QUIC-specific extension (see Section 10.2), | |||
| TLS is unmodified for this use. This means that TLS will apply | TLS is unmodified for this use. This means that TLS will apply | |||
| confidentiality and integrity protection to its records. In | confidentiality and integrity protection to its records. In | |||
| particular, TLS record protection is what provides confidentiality | particular, TLS record protection is what provides confidentiality | |||
| protection for the TLS handshake messages sent by the server. | protection for the TLS handshake messages sent by the server. | |||
| QUIC permits a client to send frames on streams starting from the | QUIC permits a client to send frames on streams starting from the | |||
| first packet. The initial packet from a client contains a stream | first packet. The initial packet from a client contains a stream | |||
| frame for stream 1 that contains the first TLS handshake messages | frame for stream 0 that contains the first TLS handshake messages | |||
| from the client. This allows the TLS handshake to start with the | from the client. This allows the TLS handshake to start with the | |||
| first packet that a client sends. | first packet that a client sends. | |||
| QUIC packets are protected using a scheme that is specific to QUIC, | QUIC packets are protected using a scheme that is specific to QUIC, | |||
| see Section 5. Keys are exported from the TLS connection when they | see Section 5. Keys are exported from the TLS connection when they | |||
| become available using a TLS exporter (see Section 7.3.3 of | become available using a TLS exporter (see Section 7.5 of | |||
| [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and Section 5.2). After keys are exported from | [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] and Section 5.2). After keys are exported from | |||
| TLS, QUIC manages its own key schedule. | TLS, QUIC manages its own key schedule. | |||
| 4.1. Handshake and Setup Sequence | 4.1. Handshake and Setup Sequence | |||
| The integration of QUIC with a TLS handshake is shown in more detail | The integration of QUIC with a TLS handshake is shown in more detail | |||
| in Figure 3. QUIC "STREAM" frames on stream 1 carry the TLS | in Figure 3. QUIC "STREAM" frames on stream 0 carry the TLS | |||
| handshake. QUIC performs loss recovery [QUIC-RECOVERY] for this | handshake. QUIC performs loss recovery [QUIC-RECOVERY] for this | |||
| stream and ensures that TLS handshake messages are delivered in the | stream and ensures that TLS handshake messages are delivered in the | |||
| correct order. | correct order. | |||
| Client Server | Client Server | |||
| @C QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <1>: | @C QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <0>: | |||
| ClientHello | ClientHello | |||
| + QUIC Extension | + QUIC Extension | |||
| --------> | --------> | |||
| 0-RTT Key => @0 | 0-RTT Key => @0 | |||
| @0 QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <any stream>: | @0 QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <any stream>: | |||
| Replayable QUIC Frames | Replayable QUIC Frames | |||
| --------> | --------> | |||
| QUIC STREAM Frame <1>: @C | QUIC STREAM Frame <0>: @C | |||
| ServerHello | ServerHello | |||
| {TLS Handshake Messages} | {TLS Handshake Messages} | |||
| <-------- | <-------- | |||
| 1-RTT Key => @1 | 1-RTT Key => @1 | |||
| QUIC Frames <any> @1 | QUIC Frames <any> @1 | |||
| <-------- | <-------- | |||
| @C QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <1>: | @C QUIC STREAM Frame(s) <0>: | |||
| (EndOfEarlyData) | (EndOfEarlyData) | |||
| {Finished} | {Finished} | |||
| --------> | --------> | |||
| @1 QUIC Frames <any> <-------> QUIC Frames <any> @1 | @1 QUIC Frames <any> <-------> QUIC Frames <any> @1 | |||
| Figure 3: QUIC over TLS Handshake | Figure 3: QUIC over TLS Handshake | |||
| In Figure 3, symbols mean: | In Figure 3, symbols mean: | |||
| o "<" and ">" enclose stream numbers. | o "<" and ">" enclose stream numbers. | |||
| o "@" indicates the key phase that is currently used for protecting | o "@" indicates the keys that are used for protecting the QUIC | |||
| QUIC packets. | packet (C = cleartext, with integrity only; 0 = 0-RTT keys; 1 = | |||
| 1-RTT keys). | ||||
| o "(" and ")" enclose messages that are protected with TLS 0-RTT | o "(" and ")" enclose messages that are protected with TLS 0-RTT | |||
| handshake or application keys. | handshake or application keys. | |||
| o "{" and "}" enclose messages that are protected by the TLS | o "{" and "}" enclose messages that are protected by the TLS | |||
| Handshake keys. | Handshake keys. | |||
| If 0-RTT is not attempted, then the client does not send packets | If 0-RTT is not attempted, then the client does not send packets | |||
| protected by the 0-RTT key (@0). In that case, the only key | protected by the 0-RTT key (@0). In that case, the only key | |||
| transition on the client is from unprotected packets (@C) to 1-RTT | transition on the client is from cleartext packets (@C) to 1-RTT | |||
| protection (@1), which happens after it sends its final set of TLS | protection (@1), which happens after it sends its final set of TLS | |||
| handshake messages. | handshake messages. | |||
| Note: the client uses two different types of cleartext packet during | ||||
| the handshake. The Client Initial packet carries a TLS ClientHello | ||||
| message; the remainder of the TLS handshake is carried in Client | ||||
| Cleartext packets. | ||||
| The server sends TLS handshake messages without protection (@C). The | The server sends TLS handshake messages without protection (@C). The | |||
| server transitions from no protection (@C) to full 1-RTT protection | server transitions from no protection (@C) to full 1-RTT protection | |||
| (@1) after it sends the last of its handshake messages. | (@1) after it sends the last of its handshake messages. | |||
| Some TLS handshake messages are protected by the TLS handshake record | Some TLS handshake messages are protected by the TLS handshake record | |||
| protection. These keys are not exported from the TLS connection for | protection. These keys are not exported from the TLS connection for | |||
| use in QUIC. QUIC packets from the server are sent in the clear | use in QUIC. QUIC packets from the server are sent in the clear | |||
| until the final transition to 1-RTT keys. | until the final transition to 1-RTT keys. | |||
| The client transitions from cleartext (@C) to 0-RTT keys (@0) when | The client transitions from cleartext (@C) to 0-RTT keys (@0) when | |||
| sending 0-RTT data, and subsequently to to 1-RTT keys (@1) after its | sending 0-RTT data, and subsequently to to 1-RTT keys (@1) after its | |||
| second flight of TLS handshake messages. This creates the potential | second flight of TLS handshake messages. This creates the potential | |||
| for unprotected packets to be received by a server in close proximity | for unprotected packets to be received by a server in close proximity | |||
| to packets that are protected with 1-RTT keys. | to packets that are protected with 1-RTT keys. | |||
| More information on key transitions is included in Section 6.1. | More information on key transitions is included in Section 7.1. | |||
| 4.2. Interface to TLS | 4.2. Interface to TLS | |||
| As shown in Figure 1, the interface from QUIC to TLS consists of four | As shown in Figure 1, the interface from QUIC to TLS consists of four | |||
| primary functions: Handshake, Source Address Validation, Key Ready | primary functions: Handshake, Source Address Validation, Key Ready | |||
| Events, and Secret Export. | Events, and Secret Export. | |||
| Additional functions might be needed to configure TLS. | Additional functions might be needed to configure TLS. | |||
| 4.2.1. Handshake Interface | 4.2.1. Handshake Interface | |||
| In order to drive the handshake, TLS depends on being able to send | In order to drive the handshake, TLS depends on being able to send | |||
| and receive handshake messages on stream 1. There are two basic | and receive handshake messages on stream 0. There are two basic | |||
| functions on this interface: one where QUIC requests handshake | functions on this interface: one where QUIC requests handshake | |||
| messages and one where QUIC provides handshake packets. | messages and one where QUIC provides handshake packets. | |||
| Before starting the handshake QUIC provides TLS with the transport | Before starting the handshake QUIC provides TLS with the transport | |||
| parameters (see Section 9.2) that it wishes to carry. | parameters (see Section 10.2) that it wishes to carry. | |||
| A QUIC client starts TLS by requesting TLS handshake octets from TLS. | A QUIC client starts TLS by requesting TLS handshake octets from TLS. | |||
| The client acquires handshake octets before sending its first packet. | The client acquires handshake octets before sending its first packet. | |||
| A QUIC server starts the process by providing TLS with stream 1 | A QUIC server starts the process by providing TLS with stream 0 | |||
| octets. | octets. | |||
| Each time that an endpoint receives data on stream 1, it delivers the | Each time that an endpoint receives data on stream 0, it delivers the | |||
| octets to TLS if it is able. Each time that TLS is provided with new | octets to TLS if it is able. Each time that TLS is provided with new | |||
| data, new handshake octets are requested from TLS. TLS might not | data, new handshake octets are requested from TLS. TLS might not | |||
| provide any octets if the handshake messages it has received are | provide any octets if the handshake messages it has received are | |||
| incomplete or it has no data to send. | incomplete or it has no data to send. | |||
| Once the TLS handshake is complete, this is indicated to QUIC along | Once the TLS handshake is complete, this is indicated to QUIC along | |||
| with any final handshake octets that TLS needs to send. TLS also | with any final handshake octets that TLS needs to send. TLS also | |||
| provides QUIC with the transport parameters that the peer advertised | provides QUIC with the transport parameters that the peer advertised | |||
| during the handshake. | during the handshake. | |||
| Once the handshake is complete, TLS becomes passive. TLS can still | Once the handshake is complete, TLS becomes passive. TLS can still | |||
| receive data from its peer and respond in kind, but it will not need | receive data from its peer and respond in kind, but it will not need | |||
| to send more data unless specifically requested - either by an | to send more data unless specifically requested - either by an | |||
| application or QUIC. One reason to send data is that the server | application or QUIC. One reason to send data is that the server | |||
| might wish to provide additional or updated session tickets to a | might wish to provide additional or updated session tickets to a | |||
| client. | client. | |||
| When the handshake is complete, QUIC only needs to provide TLS with | When the handshake is complete, QUIC only needs to provide TLS with | |||
| any data that arrives on stream 1. In the same way that is done | any data that arrives on stream 0. In the same way that is done | |||
| during the handshake, new data is requested from TLS after providing | during the handshake, new data is requested from TLS after providing | |||
| received data. | received data. | |||
| Important: Until the handshake is reported as complete, the | Important: Until the handshake is reported as complete, the | |||
| connection and key exchange are not properly authenticated at the | connection and key exchange are not properly authenticated at the | |||
| server. Even though 1-RTT keys are available to a server after | server. Even though 1-RTT keys are available to a server after | |||
| receiving the first handshake messages from a client, the server | receiving the first handshake messages from a client, the server | |||
| cannot consider the client to be authenticated until it receives | cannot consider the client to be authenticated until it receives | |||
| and validates the client's Finished message. | and validates the client's Finished message. | |||
| skipping to change at page 11, line 31 ¶ | skipping to change at page 11, line 22 ¶ | |||
| o abort the connection. | o abort the connection. | |||
| If QUIC requests source address validation, it also provides a new | If QUIC requests source address validation, it also provides a new | |||
| address validation token. TLS includes that along with any | address validation token. TLS includes that along with any | |||
| information it requires in the cookie extension of a TLS | information it requires in the cookie extension of a TLS | |||
| HelloRetryRequest message. In the other cases, the connection either | HelloRetryRequest message. In the other cases, the connection either | |||
| proceeds or terminates with a handshake error. | proceeds or terminates with a handshake error. | |||
| The client echoes the cookie extension in a second ClientHello. A | The client echoes the cookie extension in a second ClientHello. A | |||
| ClientHello that contains a valid cookie extension will be always be | ClientHello that contains a valid cookie extension will always be in | |||
| in response to a HelloRetryRequest. If address validation was | response to a HelloRetryRequest. If address validation was requested | |||
| requested by QUIC, then this will include an address validation | by QUIC, then this will include an address validation token. TLS | |||
| token. TLS makes a second address validation request of QUIC, | makes a second address validation request of QUIC, including the | |||
| including the value extracted from the cookie extension. In response | value extracted from the cookie extension. In response to this | |||
| to this request, QUIC cannot ask for client address validation, it | request, QUIC cannot ask for client address validation, it can only | |||
| can only abort or permit the connection attempt to proceed. | abort or permit the connection attempt to proceed. | |||
| QUIC can provide a new address validation token for use in session | QUIC can provide a new address validation token for use in session | |||
| resumption at any time after the handshake is complete. Each time a | resumption at any time after the handshake is complete. Each time a | |||
| new token is provided TLS generates a NewSessionTicket message, with | new token is provided TLS generates a NewSessionTicket message, with | |||
| the token included in the ticket. | the token included in the ticket. | |||
| See Section 7 for more details on client address validation. | See Section 8 for more details on client address validation. | |||
| 4.2.3. Key Ready Events | 4.2.3. Key Ready Events | |||
| TLS provides QUIC with signals when 0-RTT and 1-RTT keys are ready | TLS provides QUIC with signals when 0-RTT and 1-RTT keys are ready | |||
| for use. These events are not asynchronous, they always occur | for use. These events are not asynchronous, they always occur | |||
| immediately after TLS is provided with new handshake octets, or after | immediately after TLS is provided with new handshake octets, or after | |||
| TLS produces handshake octets. | TLS produces handshake octets. | |||
| When TLS completed its handshake, 1-RTT keys can be provided to QUIC. | When TLS completed its handshake, 1-RTT keys can be provided to QUIC. | |||
| On both client and server, this occurs after sending the TLS Finished | On both client and server, this occurs after sending the TLS Finished | |||
| skipping to change at page 13, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 13, line 23 ¶ | |||
| acceptable provided that the features of TLS 1.3 that are used by | acceptable provided that the features of TLS 1.3 that are used by | |||
| QUIC are supported by the newer version. | QUIC are supported by the newer version. | |||
| A badly configured TLS implementation could negotiate TLS 1.2 or | A badly configured TLS implementation could negotiate TLS 1.2 or | |||
| another older version of TLS. An endpoint MUST terminate the | another older version of TLS. An endpoint MUST terminate the | |||
| connection if a version of TLS older than 1.3 is negotiated. | connection if a version of TLS older than 1.3 is negotiated. | |||
| 4.4. ClientHello Size | 4.4. ClientHello Size | |||
| QUIC requires that the initial handshake packet from a client fit | QUIC requires that the initial handshake packet from a client fit | |||
| within a single packet of at least 1280 octets. With framing and | within the payload of a single packet. The size limits on QUIC | |||
| packet overheads this value could be reduced. | packets mean that a record containing a ClientHello needs to fit | |||
| within 1197 octets. | ||||
| A TLS ClientHello can fit within this limit with ample space | A TLS ClientHello can fit within this limit with ample space | |||
| remaining. However, there are several variables that could cause | remaining. However, there are several variables that could cause | |||
| this limit to be exceeded. Implementations are reminded that large | this limit to be exceeded. Implementations are reminded that large | |||
| session tickets or HelloRetryRequest cookies, multiple or large key | session tickets or HelloRetryRequest cookies, multiple or large key | |||
| shares, and long lists of supported ciphers, signature algorithms, | shares, and long lists of supported ciphers, signature algorithms, | |||
| versions, QUIC transport parameters, and other negotiable parameters | versions, QUIC transport parameters, and other negotiable parameters | |||
| and extensions could cause this message to grow. | and extensions could cause this message to grow. | |||
| For servers, the size of the session tickets and HelloRetryRequest | For servers, the size of the session tickets and HelloRetryRequest | |||
| cookie extension can have an effect on a client's ability to connect. | cookie extension can have an effect on a client's ability to connect. | |||
| Choosing a small value increases the probability that these values | Choosing a small value increases the probability that these values | |||
| can be successfully used by a client. | can be successfully used by a client. | |||
| A TLS implementation does not need to enforce this size constraint. | The TLS implementation does not need to ensure that the ClientHello | |||
| QUIC padding can be used to reach this size, meaning that a TLS | is sufficiently large. QUIC PADDING frames are added to increase the | |||
| server is unlikely to receive a large ClientHello message. | size of the packet as necessary. | |||
| 4.5. Peer Authentication | 4.5. Peer Authentication | |||
| The requirements for authentication depend on the application | The requirements for authentication depend on the application | |||
| protocol that is in use. TLS provides server authentication and | protocol that is in use. TLS provides server authentication and | |||
| permits the server to request client authentication. | permits the server to request client authentication. | |||
| A client MUST authenticate the identity of the server. This | A client MUST authenticate the identity of the server. This | |||
| typically involves verification that the identity of the server is | typically involves verification that the identity of the server is | |||
| included in a certificate and that the certificate is issued by a | included in a certificate and that the certificate is issued by a | |||
| skipping to change at page 14, line 40 ¶ | skipping to change at page 14, line 18 ¶ | |||
| handshake. A server MAY refuse a connection if the client is unable | handshake. A server MAY refuse a connection if the client is unable | |||
| to authenticate when requested. The requirements for client | to authenticate when requested. The requirements for client | |||
| authentication vary based on application protocol and deployment. | authentication vary based on application protocol and deployment. | |||
| A server MUST NOT use post-handshake client authentication (see | A server MUST NOT use post-handshake client authentication (see | |||
| Section 4.6.2 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]). | Section 4.6.2 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]). | |||
| 4.6. TLS Errors | 4.6. TLS Errors | |||
| Errors in the TLS connection SHOULD be signaled using TLS alerts on | Errors in the TLS connection SHOULD be signaled using TLS alerts on | |||
| stream 1. A failure in the handshake MUST be treated as a QUIC | stream 0. A failure in the handshake MUST be treated as a QUIC | |||
| connection error of type TLS_HANDSHAKE_FAILED. Once the handshake is | connection error of type TLS_HANDSHAKE_FAILED. Once the handshake is | |||
| complete, an error in the TLS connection that causes a TLS alert to | complete, an error in the TLS connection that causes a TLS alert to | |||
| be sent or received MUST be treated as a QUIC connection error of | be sent or received MUST be treated as a QUIC connection error of | |||
| type TLS_FATAL_ALERT_GENERATED or TLS_FATAL_ALERT_RECEIVED | type TLS_FATAL_ALERT_GENERATED or TLS_FATAL_ALERT_RECEIVED | |||
| respectively. | respectively. | |||
| 5. QUIC Packet Protection | 5. QUIC Packet Protection | |||
| QUIC packet protection provides authenticated encryption of packets. | QUIC packet protection provides authenticated encryption of packets. | |||
| This provides confidentiality and integrity protection for the | This provides confidentiality and integrity protection for the | |||
| content of packets (see Section 5.3). Packet protection uses keys | content of packets (see Section 5.3). Packet protection uses keys | |||
| that are exported from the TLS connection (see Section 5.2). | that are exported from the TLS connection (see Section 5.2). | |||
| Different keys are used for QUIC packet protection and TLS record | Different keys are used for QUIC packet protection and TLS record | |||
| protection. Having separate QUIC and TLS record protection means | protection. TLS handshake messages are protected solely with TLS | |||
| that TLS records can be protected by two different keys. This | record protection, but post-handshake messages are redundantly | |||
| redundancy is limited to only a few TLS records, and is maintained | proteted with both both the QUIC packet protection and the TLS record | |||
| for the sake of simplicity. | protection. These messages are limited in number, and so the | |||
| additional overhead is small. | ||||
| 5.1. Installing New Keys | 5.1. Installing New Keys | |||
| As TLS reports the availability of keying material, the packet | As TLS reports the availability of keying material, the packet | |||
| protection keys and initialization vectors (IVs) are updated (see | protection keys and initialization vectors (IVs) are updated (see | |||
| Section 5.2). The selection of AEAD function is also updated to | Section 5.2). The selection of AEAD function is also updated to | |||
| match the AEAD negotiated by TLS. | match the AEAD negotiated by TLS. | |||
| For packets other than any unprotected handshake packets (see | For packets other than any unprotected handshake packets (see | |||
| Section 6.1), once a change of keys has been made, packets with | Section 7.1), once a change of keys has been made, packets with | |||
| higher packet numbers MUST use the new keying material. The | higher packet numbers MUST be sent with the new keying material. The | |||
| KEY_PHASE bit on these packets is inverted each time new keys are | KEY_PHASE bit on these packets is inverted each time new keys are | |||
| installed to signal the use of the new keys to the recipient (see | installed to signal the use of the new keys to the recipient (see | |||
| Section 6 for details). | Section 7 for details). | |||
| An endpoint retransmits stream data in a new packet. New packets | An endpoint retransmits stream data in a new packet. New packets | |||
| have new packet numbers and use the latest packet protection keys. | have new packet numbers and use the latest packet protection keys. | |||
| This simplifies key management when there are key updates (see | This simplifies key management when there are key updates (see | |||
| Section 6.2). | Section 7.2). | |||
| 5.2. QUIC Key Expansion | 5.2. QUIC Key Expansion | |||
| QUIC uses a system of packet protection secrets, keys and IVs that | QUIC uses a system of packet protection secrets, keys and IVs that | |||
| are modelled on the system used in TLS [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]. The | are modelled on the system used in TLS [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]. The | |||
| secrets that QUIC uses as the basis of its key schedule are obtained | secrets that QUIC uses as the basis of its key schedule are obtained | |||
| using TLS exporters (see Section 7.3.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]). | using TLS exporters (see Section 7.5 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]). | |||
| QUIC uses HKDF with the same hash function negotiated by TLS for key | QUIC uses HKDF with the same hash function negotiated by TLS for key | |||
| derivation. For example, if TLS is using the TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, | derivation. For example, if TLS is using the TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, | |||
| the SHA-256 hash function is used. | the SHA-256 hash function is used. | |||
| 5.2.1. 0-RTT Secret | 5.2.1. 0-RTT Secret | |||
| 0-RTT keys are those keys that are used in resumed connections prior | 0-RTT keys are those keys that are used in resumed connections prior | |||
| to the completion of the TLS handshake. Data sent using 0-RTT keys | to the completion of the TLS handshake. Data sent using 0-RTT keys | |||
| might be replayed and so has some restrictions on its use, see | might be replayed and so has some restrictions on its use, see | |||
| Section 8.2. 0-RTT keys are used after sending or receiving a | Section 9.2. 0-RTT keys are used after sending or receiving a | |||
| ClientHello. | ClientHello. | |||
| The secret is exported from TLS using the exporter label "EXPORTER- | The secret is exported from TLS using the exporter label "EXPORTER- | |||
| QUIC 0-RTT Secret" and an empty context. The size of the secret MUST | QUIC 0-RTT Secret" and an empty context. The size of the secret MUST | |||
| be the size of the hash output for the PRF hash function negotiated | be the size of the hash output for the PRF hash function negotiated | |||
| by TLS. This uses the TLS early_exporter_secret. The QUIC 0-RTT | by TLS. This uses the TLS early_exporter_secret. The QUIC 0-RTT | |||
| secret is only used for protection of packets sent by the client. | secret is only used for protection of packets sent by the client. | |||
| client_0rtt_secret | client_0rtt_secret | |||
| = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC 0-RTT Secret" | = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC 0-RTT Secret" | |||
| skipping to change at page 16, line 39 ¶ | skipping to change at page 16, line 15 ¶ | |||
| client_pp_secret_0 | client_pp_secret_0 | |||
| = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC client 1-RTT Secret" | = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC client 1-RTT Secret" | |||
| "", Hash.length) | "", Hash.length) | |||
| server_pp_secret_0 | server_pp_secret_0 | |||
| = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC server 1-RTT Secret" | = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC server 1-RTT Secret" | |||
| "", Hash.length) | "", Hash.length) | |||
| These secrets are used to derive the initial client and server packet | These secrets are used to derive the initial client and server packet | |||
| protection keys. | protection keys. | |||
| After a key update (see Section 6.2), these secrets are updated using | After a key update (see Section 7.2), these secrets are updated using | |||
| the HKDF-Expand-Label function defined in Section 7.1 of | the HKDF-Expand-Label function defined in Section 7.1 of | |||
| [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]. HKDF-Expand-Label uses the PRF hash function | [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13]. HKDF-Expand-Label uses the PRF hash function | |||
| negotiated by TLS. The replacement secret is derived using the | negotiated by TLS. The replacement secret is derived using the | |||
| existing Secret, a Label of "QUIC client 1-RTT Secret" for the client | existing Secret, a Label of "QUIC client 1-RTT Secret" for the client | |||
| and "QUIC server 1-RTT Secret" for the server, an empty HashValue, | and "QUIC server 1-RTT Secret" for the server, an empty HashValue, | |||
| and the same output Length as the hash function selected by TLS for | and the same output Length as the hash function selected by TLS for | |||
| its PRF. | its PRF. | |||
| client_pp_secret_<N+1> | client_pp_secret_<N+1> | |||
| = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_pp_secret_<N>, | = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_pp_secret_<N>, | |||
| "QUIC client 1-RTT Secret", | "QUIC client 1-RTT Secret", | |||
| "", Hash.length) | "", Hash.length) | |||
| server_pp_secret_<N+1> | server_pp_secret_<N+1> | |||
| = HKDF-Expand-Label(server_pp_secret_<N>, | = HKDF-Expand-Label(server_pp_secret_<N>, | |||
| "QUIC server 1-RTT Secret", | "QUIC server 1-RTT Secret", | |||
| "", Hash.length) | "", Hash.length) | |||
| This allows for a succession of new secrets to be created as needed. | This allows for a succession of new secrets to be created as needed. | |||
| HKDF-Expand-Label uses HKDF-Expand [RFC5869] with a specially | HKDF-Expand-Label uses HKDF-Expand [RFC5869] with a specially | |||
| formatted info parameter. The info parameter that includes the | formatted info parameter, as shown: | |||
| output length (in this case, the size of the PRF hash output) encoded | ||||
| on two octets in network byte order, the length of the prefixed Label | HKDF-Expand-Label(Secret, Label, HashValue, Length) = | |||
| as a single octet, the value of the Label prefixed with "TLS 1.3, ", | HKDF-Expand(Secret, HkdfLabel, Length) | |||
| and a zero octet to indicate an empty HashValue. For example, the | ||||
| client packet protection secret uses an info parameter of: | Where HkdfLabel is specified as: | |||
| struct { | ||||
| uint16 length = Length; | ||||
| opaque label<10..255> = "TLS 1.3, " + Label; | ||||
| uint8 hashLength; // Always 0 | ||||
| } HkdfLabel; | ||||
| For example, the client packet protection secret uses an info | ||||
| parameter of: | ||||
| info = (HashLen / 256) || (HashLen % 256) || 0x21 || | info = (HashLen / 256) || (HashLen % 256) || 0x21 || | |||
| "TLS 1.3, QUIC client 1-RTT secret" || 0x00 | "TLS 1.3, QUIC client 1-RTT secret" || 0x00 | |||
| 5.2.3. Packet Protection Key and IV | 5.2.3. Packet Protection Key and IV | |||
| The complete key expansion uses an identical process for key | The complete key expansion uses an identical process for key | |||
| expansion as defined in Section 7.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], using | expansion as defined in Section 7.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], using | |||
| different values for the input secret. QUIC uses the AEAD function | different values for the input secret. QUIC uses the AEAD function | |||
| negotiated by TLS. | negotiated by TLS. | |||
| The packet protection key and IV used to protect the 0-RTT packets | The packet protection key and IV used to protect the 0-RTT packets | |||
| sent by a client use the QUIC 0-RTT secret. This uses the HKDF- | sent by a client are derived from the QUIC 0-RTT secret. The packet | |||
| Expand-Label with the PRF hash function negotiated by TLS. | protection keys and IVs for 1-RTT packets sent by the client and | |||
| server are derived from the current generation of client_pp_secret | ||||
| The length of the output is determined by the requirements of the | and server_pp_secret respectively. The length of the output is | |||
| AEAD function selected by TLS. The key length is the AEAD key size. | determined by the requirements of the AEAD function selected by TLS. | |||
| As defined in Section 5.3 of [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], the IV length is | The key length is the AEAD key size. As defined in Section 5.3 of | |||
| the larger of 8 or N_MIN (see Section 4 of [RFC5116]). | [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13], the IV length is the larger of 8 or N_MIN (see | |||
| Section 4 of [RFC5116]). For any secret S, the corresponding key and | ||||
| client_0rtt_key = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_0rtt_secret, | IV are derived as shown below: | |||
| "key", "", key_length) | ||||
| client_0rtt_iv = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_0rtt_secret, | ||||
| "iv", "", iv_length) | ||||
| Similarly, the packet protection key and IV used to protect 1-RTT | ||||
| packets sent by both client and server use the current packet | ||||
| protection secret. | ||||
| client_pp_key_<N> = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_pp_secret_<N>, | ||||
| "key", "", key_length) | ||||
| client_pp_iv_<N> = HKDF-Expand-Label(client_pp_secret_<N>, | ||||
| "iv", "", iv_length) | ||||
| server_pp_key_<N> = HKDF-Expand-Label(server_pp_secret_<N>, | ||||
| "key", "", key_length) | ||||
| server_pp_iv_<N> = HKDF-Expand-Label(server_pp_secret_<N>, | ||||
| "iv", "", iv_length) | ||||
| The client protects (or encrypts) packets with the client packet | key = HKDF-Expand-Label(S, "key", "", key_length) | |||
| protection key and IV; the server protects packets with the server | iv = HKDF-Expand-Label(S, "iv", "", iv_length) | |||
| packet protection key. | ||||
| The QUIC record protection initially starts without keying material. | The QUIC record protection initially starts without keying material. | |||
| When the TLS state machine reports that the ClientHello has been | When the TLS state machine reports that the ClientHello has been | |||
| sent, the 0-RTT keys can be generated and installed for writing. | sent, the 0-RTT keys can be generated and installed for writing. | |||
| When the TLS state machine reports completion of the handshake, the | When the TLS state machine reports completion of the handshake, the | |||
| 1-RTT keys can be generated and installed for writing. | 1-RTT keys can be generated and installed for writing. | |||
| 5.3. QUIC AEAD Usage | 5.3. QUIC AEAD Usage | |||
| The Authentication Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) [RFC5116] | The Authentication Encryption with Associated Data (AEAD) [RFC5116] | |||
| function used for QUIC packet protection is AEAD that is negotiated | function used for QUIC packet protection is AEAD that is negotiated | |||
| for use with the TLS connection. For example, if TLS is using the | for use with the TLS connection. For example, if TLS is using the | |||
| TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, the AEAD_AES_128_GCM function is used. | TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256, the AEAD_AES_128_GCM function is used. | |||
| Regular QUIC packets are protected by an AEAD [RFC5116]. Version | Regular QUIC packets are protected by an AEAD algorithm [RFC5116]. | |||
| negotiation and public reset packets are not protected. | Version negotiation and public reset packets are not protected. | |||
| Once TLS has provided a key, the contents of regular QUIC packets | Once TLS has provided a key, the contents of regular QUIC packets | |||
| immediately after any TLS messages have been sent are protected by | immediately after any TLS messages have been sent are protected by | |||
| the AEAD selected by TLS. | the AEAD selected by TLS. | |||
| The key, K, for the AEAD is either the client packet protection key | The key, K, is either the client packet protection key | |||
| (client_pp_key_n) or the server packet protection key | (client_pp_key_n) or the server packet protection key | |||
| (server_pp_key_n), derived as defined in Section 5.2. | (server_pp_key_n), derived as defined in Section 5.2. | |||
| The nonce, N, for the AEAD is formed by combining either the packet | The nonce, N, is formed by combining the packet protection IV (either | |||
| protection IV (either client_pp_iv_n or server_pp_iv_n) with packet | client_pp_iv_n or server_pp_iv_n) with the packet number. The 64 | |||
| numbers. The 64 bits of the reconstructed QUIC packet number in | bits of the reconstructed QUIC packet number in network byte order is | |||
| network byte order is left-padded with zeros to the size of the IV. | left-padded with zeros to the size of the IV. The exclusive OR of | |||
| The exclusive OR of the padded packet number and the IV forms the | the padded packet number and the IV forms the AEAD nonce. | |||
| AEAD nonce. | ||||
| The associated data, A, for the AEAD is the contents of the QUIC | The associated data, A, for the AEAD is the contents of the QUIC | |||
| header, starting from the flags octet in the common header. | header, starting from the flags octet in the common header. | |||
| The input plaintext, P, for the AEAD is the contents of the QUIC | The input plaintext, P, for the AEAD is the contents of the QUIC | |||
| frame following the packet number, as described in [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. | frame following the packet number, as described in [QUIC-TRANSPORT]. | |||
| The output ciphertext, C, of the AEAD is transmitted in place of P. | The output ciphertext, C, of the AEAD is transmitted in place of P. | |||
| Prior to TLS providing keys, no record protection is performed and | Prior to TLS providing keys, no record protection is performed and | |||
| skipping to change at page 19, line 34 ¶ | skipping to change at page 18, line 43 ¶ | |||
| attacks where packets are dropped in other ways. QUIC is therefore | attacks where packets are dropped in other ways. QUIC is therefore | |||
| not affected by this form of truncation. | not affected by this form of truncation. | |||
| The QUIC packet number is not reset and it is not permitted to go | The QUIC packet number is not reset and it is not permitted to go | |||
| higher than its maximum value of 2^64-1. This establishes a hard | higher than its maximum value of 2^64-1. This establishes a hard | |||
| limit on the number of packets that can be sent. | limit on the number of packets that can be sent. | |||
| Some AEAD functions have limits for how many packets can be encrypted | Some AEAD functions have limits for how many packets can be encrypted | |||
| under the same key and IV (see for example [AEBounds]). This might | under the same key and IV (see for example [AEBounds]). This might | |||
| be lower than the packet number limit. An endpoint MUST initiate a | be lower than the packet number limit. An endpoint MUST initiate a | |||
| key update (Section 6.2) prior to exceeding any limit set for the | key update (Section 7.2) prior to exceeding any limit set for the | |||
| AEAD that is in use. | AEAD that is in use. | |||
| TLS maintains a separate sequence number that is used for record | TLS maintains a separate sequence number that is used for record | |||
| protection on the connection that is hosted on stream 1. This | protection on the connection that is hosted on stream 0. This | |||
| sequence number is not visible to QUIC. | sequence number is not visible to QUIC. | |||
| 5.5. Receiving Protected Packets | 5.5. Receiving Protected Packets | |||
| Once an endpoint successfully receives a packet with a given packet | Once an endpoint successfully receives a packet with a given packet | |||
| number, it MUST discard all packets with higher packet numbers if | number, it MUST discard all packets with higher packet numbers if | |||
| they cannot be successfully unprotected with either the same key, or | they cannot be successfully unprotected with either the same key, or | |||
| - if there is a key update - the next packet protection key (see | - if there is a key update - the next packet protection key (see | |||
| Section 6.2). Similarly, a packet that appears to trigger a key | Section 7.2). Similarly, a packet that appears to trigger a key | |||
| update, but cannot be unprotected successfully MUST be discarded. | update, but cannot be unprotected successfully MUST be discarded. | |||
| Failure to unprotect a packet does not necessarily indicate the | Failure to unprotect a packet does not necessarily indicate the | |||
| existence of a protocol error in a peer or an attack. The truncated | existence of a protocol error in a peer or an attack. The truncated | |||
| packet number encoding used in QUIC can cause packet numbers to be | packet number encoding used in QUIC can cause packet numbers to be | |||
| decoded incorrectly if they are delayed significantly. | decoded incorrectly if they are delayed significantly. | |||
| 6. Key Phases | 5.6. Packet Number Gaps | |||
| [QUIC-TRANSPORT]; Section 7.5.1.1 also requires a secret to compute | ||||
| packet number gaps on connection ID transitions. That secret is | ||||
| computed as: | ||||
| packet_number_secret | ||||
| = TLS-Exporter("EXPORTER-QUIC Packet Number Secret" | ||||
| "", Hash.length) | ||||
| 6. Unprotected Packets | ||||
| QUIC adds an integrity check to all unprotected packets. Any packet | ||||
| that is not protected by the negotiated AEAD (see Section 5), | ||||
| includes an integrity check. This check does not prevent the packet | ||||
| from being altered, it exists for added resilience against data | ||||
| corruption and to provided added assurance that the sender intends to | ||||
| use QUIC. | ||||
| Unprotected packets all use the long form of the QUIC header and so | ||||
| will include a version number. For this version of QUIC, the | ||||
| integrity check uses the 64-bit FNV-1a hash (see Section 6.2). The | ||||
| output of this hash is appended to the payload of the packet. | ||||
| The integrity check algorithm MAY change for other versions of the | ||||
| protocol. | ||||
| 6.1. Integrity Check Processing | ||||
| An endpoint sending a packet that has a long header and a type that | ||||
| does not indicate that the packet will be protected (that is, 0-RTT | ||||
| Encrypted (0x05), 1-RTT Encrypted (key phase 0) (0x06), or 1-RTT | ||||
| Encrypted (key phase 1) (0x07)) first constructs the packet that it | ||||
| sends without the integrity check. | ||||
| The sender then calculates the integrity check over the entire | ||||
| packet, starting from the type field. The output of the hash is | ||||
| appended to the packet. | ||||
| A receiver that receives an unprotected packet first checks that the | ||||
| version is correct, then removes the trailing 8 octets. It | ||||
| calculates the integrity check over the remainder of the packet. | ||||
| Unprotected packets that do not contain a valid integrity check MUST | ||||
| be discarded. | ||||
| 6.2. The 64-bit FNV-1a Algorithm | ||||
| QUIC uses the 64-bit version of the alternative Fowler/Noll/Vo hash | ||||
| (FNV-1a) [FNV]. | ||||
| FNV-1a can be expressed in pseudocode as: | ||||
| "hash := offset basis for each input octet: hash := hash XOR input | ||||
| octet hash := hash * prime " | ||||
| That is, a 64-bit unsigned integer is initialized with an offset | ||||
| basis. Then, for each octet of the input, the exclusive binary OR of | ||||
| the value is taken, then multiplied by a prime. Any overflow from | ||||
| multiplication is discarded. | ||||
| The offset basis for the 64-bit FNV-1a is the decimal value | ||||
| 14695981039346656037 (in hex, 0xcbf29ce484222325). The prime is | ||||
| 1099511628211 (in hex, 0x100000001b3; or as an expression 2^40 + 2^8 | ||||
| + 0xb3). | ||||
| Once all octets have been processed in this fashion, the final | ||||
| integer value is encoded as 8 octets in network byte order. | ||||
| 7. Key Phases | ||||
| As TLS reports the availability of 0-RTT and 1-RTT keys, new keying | As TLS reports the availability of 0-RTT and 1-RTT keys, new keying | |||
| material can be exported from TLS and used for QUIC packet | material can be exported from TLS and used for QUIC packet | |||
| protection. At each transition during the handshake a new secret is | protection. At each transition during the handshake a new secret is | |||
| exported from TLS and packet protection keys are derived from that | exported from TLS and packet protection keys are derived from that | |||
| secret. | secret. | |||
| Every time that a new set of keys is used for protecting outbound | Every time that a new set of keys is used for protecting outbound | |||
| packets, the KEY_PHASE bit in the public flags is toggled. The | packets, the KEY_PHASE bit in the public flags is toggled. 0-RTT | |||
| exception is the transition from 0-RTT keys to 1-RTT keys, where the | protected packets use the QUIC long header, they do not use the | |||
| presence of the version field and its associated bit is used (see | KEY_PHASE bit to select the correct keys (see Section 7.1.1). | |||
| Section 6.1.1). | ||||
| Once the connection is fully enabled, the KEY_PHASE bit allows a | Once the connection is fully enabled, the KEY_PHASE bit allows a | |||
| recipient to detect a change in keying material without necessarily | recipient to detect a change in keying material without necessarily | |||
| needing to receive the first packet that triggered the change. An | needing to receive the first packet that triggered the change. An | |||
| endpoint that notices a changed KEY_PHASE bit can update keys and | endpoint that notices a changed KEY_PHASE bit can update keys and | |||
| decrypt the packet that contains the changed bit, see Section 6.2. | decrypt the packet that contains the changed bit, see Section 7.2. | |||
| The KEY_PHASE bit is the third bit of the public flags (0x04). | The KEY_PHASE bit is included as the 0x20 bit of the QUIC short | |||
| header, or is determined by the packet type from the long header (a | ||||
| type of 0x06 indicates a key phase of 0, 0x07 indicates key phase 1). | ||||
| Transitions between keys during the handshake are complicated by the | Transitions between keys during the handshake are complicated by the | |||
| need to ensure that TLS handshake messages are sent with the correct | need to ensure that TLS handshake messages are sent with the correct | |||
| packet protection. | packet protection. | |||
| 6.1. Packet Protection for the TLS Handshake | 7.1. Packet Protection for the TLS Handshake | |||
| The initial exchange of packets are sent without protection. These | The initial exchange of packets are sent without protection. These | |||
| packets are marked with a KEY_PHASE of 0. | packets use a cleartext packet type. | |||
| TLS handshake messages MUST NOT be protected using QUIC packet | TLS handshake messages MUST NOT be protected using QUIC packet | |||
| protection. A KEY_PHASE of 0 is used for all of these packets, even | protection. All TLS handshake messages up to the TLS Finished | |||
| during retransmission. The messages affected are all TLS handshake | message sent by either endpoint use cleartext packets. | |||
| message up to the TLS Finished that is sent by each endpoint. | ||||
| Any TLS handshake messages that are sent after completing the TLS | Any TLS handshake messages that are sent after completing the TLS | |||
| handshake do not need special packet protection rules. Packets | handshake do not need special packet protection rules. Packets | |||
| containing these messages use the packet protection keys that are | containing these messages use the packet protection keys that are | |||
| current at the time of sending (or retransmission). | current at the time of sending (or retransmission). | |||
| Like the client, a server MUST send retransmissions of its | Like the client, a server MUST send retransmissions of its | |||
| unprotected handshake messages or acknowledgments for unprotected | unprotected handshake messages or acknowledgments for unprotected | |||
| handshake messages sent by the client in unprotected packets | handshake messages sent by the client in cleartext packets. | |||
| (KEY_PHASE=0). | ||||
| 6.1.1. Initial Key Transitions | 7.1.1. Initial Key Transitions | |||
| Once the TLS handshake is complete, keying material is exported from | Once the TLS handshake is complete, keying material is exported from | |||
| TLS and QUIC packet protection commences. | TLS and QUIC packet protection commences. | |||
| Packets protected with 1-RTT keys have a KEY_PHASE bit set to 1. | Packets protected with 1-RTT keys initially have a KEY_PHASE bit set | |||
| These packets also have a VERSION bit set to 0. | to 0. This bit inverts with each subsequent key update (see | |||
| Section 7.2). | ||||
| If the client sends 0-RTT data, it marks packets protected with 0-RTT | ||||
| keys with a KEY_PHASE of 1 and a VERSION bit of 1. Setting the | ||||
| version bit means that all packets also include the version field. | ||||
| The client retains the VERSION bit, but reverts the KEY_PHASE bit for | ||||
| the packet that contains the TLS EndOfEarlyData and Finished | ||||
| messages. | ||||
| The client clears the VERSION bit and sets the KEY_PHASE bit to 1 | ||||
| when it transitions to using 1-RTT keys. | ||||
| Marking 0-RTT data with the both KEY_PHASE and VERSION bits ensures | If the client sends 0-RTT data, it uses the 0-RTT packet type. The | |||
| that the server is able to identify these packets as 0-RTT data in | packet that contains the TLS EndOfEarlyData and Finished messages are | |||
| case packets containing TLS handshake message are lost or delayed. | sent in cleartext packets. | |||
| Including the version also ensures that the packet format is known to | ||||
| the server in this case. | ||||
| Using both KEY_PHASE and VERSION also ensures that the server is able | Using distinct packet types during the handshake for handshake | |||
| to distinguish between cleartext handshake packets (KEY_PHASE=0, | messages, 0-RTT data, and 1-RTT data ensures that the server is able | |||
| VERSION=1), 0-RTT protected packets (KEY_PHASE=1, VERSION=1), and | to distinguish between the different keys used to remove packet | |||
| 1-RTT protected packets (KEY_PHASE=1, VERSION=0). Packets with all | protection. All of these packets can arrive concurrently at a | |||
| of these markings can arrive concurrently, and being able to identify | server. | |||
| each cleanly ensures that the correct packet protection keys can be | ||||
| selected and applied. | ||||
| A server might choose to retain 0-RTT packets that arrive before a | A server might choose to retain 0-RTT packets that arrive before a | |||
| TLS ClientHello. The server can then use those packets once the | TLS ClientHello. The server can then use those packets once the | |||
| ClientHello arrives. However, the potential for denial of service | ClientHello arrives. However, the potential for denial of service | |||
| from buffering 0-RTT packets is significant. These packets cannot be | from buffering 0-RTT packets is significant. These packets cannot be | |||
| authenticated and so might be employed by an attacker to exhaust | authenticated and so might be employed by an attacker to exhaust | |||
| server resources. Limiting the number of packets that are saved | server resources. Limiting the number of packets that are saved | |||
| might be necessary. | might be necessary. | |||
| The server transitions to using 1-RTT keys after sending its first | The server transitions to using 1-RTT keys after sending its first | |||
| flight of TLS handshake messages. From this point, the server | flight of TLS handshake messages. From this point, the server | |||
| protects all packets with 1-RTT keys. Future packets are therefore | protects all packets with 1-RTT keys. Future packets are therefore | |||
| protected with 1-RTT keys and marked with a KEY_PHASE of 1. | protected with 1-RTT keys. Initially, these are marked with a | |||
| KEY_PHASE of 0. | ||||
| 6.1.2. Retransmission and Acknowledgment of Unprotected Packets | 7.1.2. Retransmission and Acknowledgment of Unprotected Packets | |||
| TLS handshake messages from both client and server are critical to | TLS handshake messages from both client and server are critical to | |||
| the key exchange. The contents of these messages determines the keys | the key exchange. The contents of these messages determines the keys | |||
| used to protect later messages. If these handshake messages are | used to protect later messages. If these handshake messages are | |||
| included in packets that are protected with these keys, they will be | included in packets that are protected with these keys, they will be | |||
| indecipherable to the recipient. | indecipherable to the recipient. | |||
| Even though newer keys could be available when retranmitting, | Even though newer keys could be available when retransmitting, | |||
| retransmissions of these handshake messages MUST be sent in | retransmissions of these handshake messages MUST be sent in cleartext | |||
| unprotected packets (with a KEY_PHASE of 0). An endpoint MUST also | packets. An endpoint MUST generate ACK frames for these messages and | |||
| generate ACK frames for these messages that are sent in unprotected | send them in cleartext packets. | |||
| packets. | ||||
| A HelloRetryRequest handshake message might be used to reject an | A HelloRetryRequest handshake message might be used to reject an | |||
| initial ClientHello. A HelloRetryRequest handshake message and any | initial ClientHello. A HelloRetryRequest handshake message is sent | |||
| second ClientHello that is sent in response MUST also be sent without | in a Server Stateless Retry packet; any second ClientHello that is | |||
| packet protection. This is natural, because no new keying material | sent in response uses a Client Initial packet type. Neither packet | |||
| will be available when these messages need to be sent. Upon receipt | is protected. This is natural, because no new keying material will | |||
| of a HelloRetryRequest, a client SHOULD cease any transmission of | be available when these messages need to be sent. Upon receipt of a | |||
| 0-RTT data; 0-RTT data will only be discarded by any server that | HelloRetryRequest, a client SHOULD cease any transmission of 0-RTT | |||
| sends a HelloRetryRequest. | data; 0-RTT data will only be discarded by any server that sends a | |||
| HelloRetryRequest. | ||||
| The KEY_PHASE and VERSION bits ensure that protected packets are | The packet type ensures that protected packets are clearly | |||
| clearly distinguished from unprotected packets. Loss or reordering | distinguished from unprotected packets. Loss or reordering might | |||
| might cause unprotected packets to arrive once 1-RTT keys are in use, | cause unprotected packets to arrive once 1-RTT keys are in use, | |||
| unprotected packets are easily distinguished from 1-RTT packets. | unprotected packets are easily distinguished from 1-RTT packets using | |||
| the packet type. | ||||
| Once 1-RTT keys are available to an endpoint, it no longer needs the | Once 1-RTT keys are available to an endpoint, it no longer needs the | |||
| TLS handshake messages that are carried in unprotected packets. | TLS handshake messages that are carried in unprotected packets. | |||
| However, a server might need to retransmit its TLS handshake messages | However, a server might need to retransmit its TLS handshake messages | |||
| in response to receiving an unprotected packet that contains ACK | in response to receiving an unprotected packet that contains ACK | |||
| frames. A server MUST process ACK frames in unprotected packets | frames. A server MUST process ACK frames in unprotected packets | |||
| until the TLS handshake is reported as complete, or it receives an | until the TLS handshake is reported as complete, or it receives an | |||
| ACK frame in a protected packet that acknowledges all of its | ACK frame in a protected packet that acknowledges all of its | |||
| handshake messages. | handshake messages. | |||
| To limit the number of key phases that could be active, an endpoint | To limit the number of key phases that could be active, an endpoint | |||
| MUST NOT initiate a key update while there are any unacknowledged | MUST NOT initiate a key update while there are any unacknowledged | |||
| handshake messages, see Section 6.2. | handshake messages, see Section 7.2. | |||
| 6.2. Key Update | 7.2. Key Update | |||
| Once the TLS handshake is complete, the KEY_PHASE bit allows for | Once the TLS handshake is complete, the KEY_PHASE bit allows for | |||
| refreshes of keying material by either peer. Endpoints start using | refreshes of keying material by either peer. Endpoints start using | |||
| updated keys immediately without additional signaling; the change in | updated keys immediately without additional signaling; the change in | |||
| the KEY_PHASE bit indicates that a new key is in use. | the KEY_PHASE bit indicates that a new key is in use. | |||
| An endpoint MUST NOT initiate more than one key update at a time. A | An endpoint MUST NOT initiate more than one key update at a time. A | |||
| new key cannot be used until the endpoint has received and | new key cannot be used until the endpoint has received and | |||
| successfully decrypted a packet with a matching KEY_PHASE. Note that | successfully decrypted a packet with a matching KEY_PHASE. Note that | |||
| when 0-RTT is attempted the value of the KEY_PHASE bit will be | when 0-RTT is attempted the value of the KEY_PHASE bit will be | |||
| skipping to change at page 24, line 36 ¶ | skipping to change at page 24, line 41 ¶ | |||
| messages. A client cannot initiate a key update until all of its | messages. A client cannot initiate a key update until all of its | |||
| handshake messages have been acknowledged by the server. | handshake messages have been acknowledged by the server. | |||
| A packet that triggers a key update could arrive after successfully | A packet that triggers a key update could arrive after successfully | |||
| processing a packet with a higher packet number. This is only | processing a packet with a higher packet number. This is only | |||
| possible if there is a key compromise and an attack, or if the peer | possible if there is a key compromise and an attack, or if the peer | |||
| is incorrectly reverting to use of old keys. Because the latter | is incorrectly reverting to use of old keys. Because the latter | |||
| cannot be differentiated from an attack, an endpoint MUST immediately | cannot be differentiated from an attack, an endpoint MUST immediately | |||
| terminate the connection if it detects this condition. | terminate the connection if it detects this condition. | |||
| 7. Client Address Validation | 8. Client Address Validation | |||
| Two tools are provided by TLS to enable validation of client source | Two tools are provided by TLS to enable validation of client source | |||
| addresses at a server: the cookie in the HelloRetryRequest message, | addresses at a server: the cookie in the HelloRetryRequest message, | |||
| and the ticket in the NewSessionTicket message. | and the ticket in the NewSessionTicket message. | |||
| 7.1. HelloRetryRequest Address Validation | 8.1. HelloRetryRequest Address Validation | |||
| The cookie extension in the TLS HelloRetryRequest message allows a | The cookie extension in the TLS HelloRetryRequest message allows a | |||
| server to perform source address validation during the handshake. | server to perform source address validation during the handshake. | |||
| When QUIC requests address validation during the processing of the | When QUIC requests address validation during the processing of the | |||
| first ClientHello, the token it provides is included in the cookie | first ClientHello, the token it provides is included in the cookie | |||
| extension of a HelloRetryRequest. As long as the cookie cannot be | extension of a HelloRetryRequest. As long as the cookie cannot be | |||
| successfully guessed by a client, the server can be assured that the | successfully guessed by a client, the server can be assured that the | |||
| client received the HelloRetryRequest if it includes the value in a | client received the HelloRetryRequest if it includes the value in a | |||
| second ClientHello. | second ClientHello. | |||
| skipping to change at page 25, line 32 ¶ | skipping to change at page 25, line 39 ¶ | |||
| If TLS needs to send a HelloRetryRequest for other reasons, it needs | If TLS needs to send a HelloRetryRequest for other reasons, it needs | |||
| to ensure that it can correctly identify the reason that the | to ensure that it can correctly identify the reason that the | |||
| HelloRetryRequest was generated. During the processing of a second | HelloRetryRequest was generated. During the processing of a second | |||
| ClientHello, TLS does not need to consult the transport protocol | ClientHello, TLS does not need to consult the transport protocol | |||
| regarding address validation if address validation was not requested | regarding address validation if address validation was not requested | |||
| originally. In such cases, the cookie extension could either be | originally. In such cases, the cookie extension could either be | |||
| absent or it could indicate that an address validation token is not | absent or it could indicate that an address validation token is not | |||
| present. | present. | |||
| 7.2. NewSessionTicket Address Validation | 8.1.1. Stateless Address Validation | |||
| A server can use the cookie extension to store all state necessary to | ||||
| continue the connection. This allows a server to avoid committing | ||||
| state for clients that have unvalidated source addresses. | ||||
| For instance, a server could use a statically-configured key to | ||||
| encrypt the information that it requires and include that information | ||||
| in the cookie. In addition to address validation information, a | ||||
| server that uses encryption also needs to be able recover the hash of | ||||
| the ClientHello and its length, plus any information it needs in | ||||
| order to reconstruct the HelloRetryRequest. | ||||
| 8.1.2. Sending HelloRetryRequest | ||||
| A server does not need to maintain state for the connection when | ||||
| sending a HelloRetryRequest message. This might be necessary to | ||||
| avoid creating a denial of service exposure for the server. However, | ||||
| this means that information about the transport will be lost at the | ||||
| server. This includes the stream offset of stream 0, the packet | ||||
| number that the server selects, and any opportunity to measure round | ||||
| trip time. | ||||
| A server MUST send a TLS HelloRetryRequest in a Server Stateless | ||||
| Retry packet. Using a Server Stateless Retry packet causes the | ||||
| client to reset stream offsets. It also avoids the need for the | ||||
| server select an initial packet number, which would need to be | ||||
| remembered so that subsequent packets could be correctly numbered. | ||||
| A HelloRetryRequest message MUST NOT be split between multiple Server | ||||
| Stateless Retry packets. This means that HelloRetryRequest is | ||||
| subject to the same size constraints as a ClientHello (see | ||||
| Section 4.4). | ||||
| 8.2. NewSessionTicket Address Validation | ||||
| The ticket in the TLS NewSessionTicket message allows a server to | The ticket in the TLS NewSessionTicket message allows a server to | |||
| provide a client with a similar sort of token. When a client resumes | provide a client with a similar sort of token. When a client resumes | |||
| a TLS connection - whether or not 0-RTT is attempted - it includes | a TLS connection - whether or not 0-RTT is attempted - it includes | |||
| the ticket in the handshake message. As with the HelloRetryRequest | the ticket in the handshake message. As with the HelloRetryRequest | |||
| cookie, the server includes the address validation token in the | cookie, the server includes the address validation token in the | |||
| ticket. TLS provides the token it extracts from the session ticket | ticket. TLS provides the token it extracts from the session ticket | |||
| to the transport when it asks whether source address validation is | to the transport when it asks whether source address validation is | |||
| needed. | needed. | |||
| skipping to change at page 26, line 10 ¶ | skipping to change at page 27, line 5 ¶ | |||
| A server can send a NewSessionTicket message at any time. This | A server can send a NewSessionTicket message at any time. This | |||
| allows it to update the state - and the address validation token - | allows it to update the state - and the address validation token - | |||
| that is included in the ticket. This might be done to refresh the | that is included in the ticket. This might be done to refresh the | |||
| ticket or token, or it might be generated in response to changes in | ticket or token, or it might be generated in response to changes in | |||
| the state of the connection. QUIC can request that a | the state of the connection. QUIC can request that a | |||
| NewSessionTicket be sent by providing a new address validation token. | NewSessionTicket be sent by providing a new address validation token. | |||
| A server that intends to support 0-RTT SHOULD provide an address | A server that intends to support 0-RTT SHOULD provide an address | |||
| validation token immediately after completing the TLS handshake. | validation token immediately after completing the TLS handshake. | |||
| 7.3. Address Validation Token Integrity | 8.3. Address Validation Token Integrity | |||
| TLS MUST provide integrity protection for address validation token | TLS MUST provide integrity protection for address validation token | |||
| unless the transport guarantees integrity protection by other means. | unless the transport guarantees integrity protection by other means. | |||
| For a NewSessionTicket that includes confidential information - such | For a NewSessionTicket that includes confidential information - such | |||
| as the resumption secret - including the token under authenticated | as the resumption secret - including the token under authenticated | |||
| encryption ensures that the token gains both confidentiality and | encryption ensures that the token gains both confidentiality and | |||
| integrity protection without duplicating the overheads of that | integrity protection without duplicating the overheads of that | |||
| protection. | protection. | |||
| 8. Pre-handshake QUIC Messages | 9. Pre-handshake QUIC Messages | |||
| Implementations MUST NOT exchange data on any stream other than | Implementations MUST NOT exchange data on any stream other than | |||
| stream 1 without packet protection. QUIC requires the use of several | stream 0 without packet protection. QUIC requires the use of several | |||
| types of frame for managing loss detection and recovery during this | types of frame for managing loss detection and recovery during this | |||
| phase. In addition, it might be useful to use the data acquired | phase. In addition, it might be useful to use the data acquired | |||
| during the exchange of unauthenticated messages for congestion | during the exchange of unauthenticated messages for congestion | |||
| control. | control. | |||
| This section generally only applies to TLS handshake messages from | This section generally only applies to TLS handshake messages from | |||
| both peers and acknowledgments of the packets carrying those | both peers and acknowledgments of the packets carrying those | |||
| messages. In many cases, the need for servers to provide | messages. In many cases, the need for servers to provide | |||
| acknowledgments is minimal, since the messages that clients send are | acknowledgments is minimal, since the messages that clients send are | |||
| small and implicitly acknowledged by the server's responses. | small and implicitly acknowledged by the server's responses. | |||
| skipping to change at page 27, line 4 ¶ | skipping to change at page 27, line 47 ¶ | |||
| o discard and ignore them | o discard and ignore them | |||
| o use them, but reset any state that is established once the | o use them, but reset any state that is established once the | |||
| handshake completes | handshake completes | |||
| o use them and authenticate them afterwards; failing the handshake | o use them and authenticate them afterwards; failing the handshake | |||
| if they can't be authenticated | if they can't be authenticated | |||
| o save them and use them when they can be properly authenticated | o save them and use them when they can be properly authenticated | |||
| o treat them as a fatal error | o treat them as a fatal error | |||
| Different strategies are appropriate for different types of data. | Different strategies are appropriate for different types of data. | |||
| This document proposes that all strategies are possible depending on | This document proposes that all strategies are possible depending on | |||
| the type of message. | the type of message. | |||
| o Transport parameters are made usable and authenticated as part of | o Transport parameters are made usable and authenticated as part of | |||
| the TLS handshake (see Section 9.2). | the TLS handshake (see Section 10.2). | |||
| o Most unprotected messages are treated as fatal errors when | o Most unprotected messages are treated as fatal errors when | |||
| received except for the small number necessary to permit the | received except for the small number necessary to permit the | |||
| handshake to complete (see Section 8.1). | handshake to complete (see Section 9.1). | |||
| o Protected packets can either be discarded or saved and later used | o Protected packets can either be discarded or saved and later used | |||
| (see Section 8.3). | (see Section 9.3). | |||
| 8.1. Unprotected Packets Prior to Handshake Completion | 9.1. Unprotected Packets Prior to Handshake Completion | |||
| This section describes the handling of messages that are sent and | This section describes the handling of messages that are sent and | |||
| received prior to the completion of the TLS handshake. | received prior to the completion of the TLS handshake. | |||
| Sending and receiving unprotected messages is hazardous. Unless | Sending and receiving unprotected messages is hazardous. Unless | |||
| expressly permitted, receipt of an unprotected message of any kind | expressly permitted, receipt of an unprotected message of any kind | |||
| MUST be treated as a fatal error. | MUST be treated as a fatal error. | |||
| 8.1.1. STREAM Frames | 9.1.1. STREAM Frames | |||
| "STREAM" frames for stream 1 are permitted. These carry the TLS | "STREAM" frames for stream 0 are permitted. These carry the TLS | |||
| handshake messages. Once 1-RTT keys are available, unprotected | handshake messages. Once 1-RTT keys are available, unprotected | |||
| "STREAM" frames on stream 1 can be ignored. | "STREAM" frames on stream 0 can be ignored. | |||
| Receiving unprotected "STREAM" frames for other streams MUST be | Receiving unprotected "STREAM" frames for other streams MUST be | |||
| treated as a fatal error. | treated as a fatal error. | |||
| 8.1.2. ACK Frames | 9.1.2. ACK Frames | |||
| "ACK" frames are permitted prior to the handshake being complete. | "ACK" frames are permitted prior to the handshake being complete. | |||
| Information learned from "ACK" frames cannot be entirely relied upon, | Information learned from "ACK" frames cannot be entirely relied upon, | |||
| since an attacker is able to inject these packets. Timing and packet | since an attacker is able to inject these packets. Timing and packet | |||
| retransmission information from "ACK" frames is critical to the | retransmission information from "ACK" frames is critical to the | |||
| functioning of the protocol, but these frames might be spoofed or | functioning of the protocol, but these frames might be spoofed or | |||
| altered. | altered. | |||
| Endpoints MUST NOT use an unprotected "ACK" frame to acknowledge data | Endpoints MUST NOT use an unprotected "ACK" frame to acknowledge data | |||
| that was protected by 0-RTT or 1-RTT keys. An endpoint MUST ignore | that was protected by 0-RTT or 1-RTT keys. An endpoint MUST ignore | |||
| skipping to change at page 28, line 20 ¶ | skipping to change at page 29, line 13 ¶ | |||
| problem if the handshake completes without loss, but it could mean | problem if the handshake completes without loss, but it could mean | |||
| that 0-RTT stalls when a handshake packet disappears for any | that 0-RTT stalls when a handshake packet disappears for any | |||
| reason. | reason. | |||
| An endpoint SHOULD use data from unprotected or 0-RTT-protected "ACK" | An endpoint SHOULD use data from unprotected or 0-RTT-protected "ACK" | |||
| frames only during the initial handshake and while they have | frames only during the initial handshake and while they have | |||
| insufficient information from 1-RTT-protected "ACK" frames. Once | insufficient information from 1-RTT-protected "ACK" frames. Once | |||
| sufficient information has been obtained from protected messages, | sufficient information has been obtained from protected messages, | |||
| information obtained from less reliable sources can be discarded. | information obtained from less reliable sources can be discarded. | |||
| 8.1.3. WINDOW_UPDATE Frames | 9.1.3. Updates to Data and Stream Limits | |||
| "WINDOW_UPDATE" frames MUST NOT be sent unprotected. | "MAX_DATA", "MAX_STREAM_DATA", "BLOCKED", "STREAM_BLOCKED", and | |||
| "MAX_STREAM_ID" frames MUST NOT be sent unprotected. | ||||
| Though data is exchanged on stream 1, the initial flow control window | Though data is exchanged on stream 0, the initial flow control window | |||
| is sufficiently large to allow the TLS handshake to complete. This | on that stream is sufficiently large to allow the TLS handshake to | |||
| limits the maximum size of the TLS handshake and would prevent a | complete. This limits the maximum size of the TLS handshake and | |||
| server or client from using an abnormally large certificate chain. | would prevent a server or client from using an abnormally large | |||
| certificate chain. | ||||
| Stream 1 is exempt from the connection-level flow control window. | Stream 0 is exempt from the connection-level flow control window. | |||
| 8.1.4. Denial of Service with Unprotected Packets | Consequently, there is no need to signal being blocked on flow | |||
| control. | ||||
| Similarly, there is no need to increase the number of allowed streams | ||||
| until the handshake completes. | ||||
| 9.1.4. Denial of Service with Unprotected Packets | ||||
| Accepting unprotected - specifically unauthenticated - packets | Accepting unprotected - specifically unauthenticated - packets | |||
| presents a denial of service risk to endpoints. An attacker that is | presents a denial of service risk to endpoints. An attacker that is | |||
| able to inject unprotected packets can cause a recipient to drop even | able to inject unprotected packets can cause a recipient to drop even | |||
| protected packets with a matching sequence number. The spurious | protected packets with a matching sequence number. The spurious | |||
| packet shadows the genuine packet, causing the genuine packet to be | packet shadows the genuine packet, causing the genuine packet to be | |||
| ignored as redundant. | ignored as redundant. | |||
| Once the TLS handshake is complete, both peers MUST ignore | Once the TLS handshake is complete, both peers MUST ignore | |||
| unprotected packets. From that point onward, unprotected messages | unprotected packets. From that point onward, unprotected messages | |||
| can be safely dropped. | can be safely dropped. | |||
| Since only TLS handshake packets and acknowledgments are sent in the | Since only TLS handshake packets and acknowledgments are sent in the | |||
| clear, an attacker is able to force implementations to rely on | clear, an attacker is able to force implementations to rely on | |||
| retransmission for packets that are lost or shadowed. Thus, an | retransmission for packets that are lost or shadowed. Thus, an | |||
| attacker that intends to deny service to an endpoint has to drop or | attacker that intends to deny service to an endpoint has to drop or | |||
| shadow protected packets in order to ensure that their victim | shadow protected packets in order to ensure that their victim | |||
| continues to accept unprotected packets. The ability to shadow | continues to accept unprotected packets. The ability to shadow | |||
| packets means that an attacker does not need to be on path. | packets means that an attacker does not need to be on path. | |||
| ISSUE: This would not be an issue if QUIC had a randomized starting | ||||
| sequence number. If we choose to randomize, we fix this problem | ||||
| and reduce the denial of service exposure to on-path attackers. | ||||
| The only possible problem is in authenticating the initial value, | ||||
| so that peers can be sure that they haven't missed an initial | ||||
| message. | ||||
| In addition to causing valid packets to be dropped, an attacker can | In addition to causing valid packets to be dropped, an attacker can | |||
| generate packets with an intent of causing the recipient to expend | generate packets with an intent of causing the recipient to expend | |||
| processing resources. See Section 10.2 for a discussion of these | processing resources. See Section 11.2 for a discussion of these | |||
| risks. | risks. | |||
| To avoid receiving TLS packets that contain no useful data, a TLS | To avoid receiving TLS packets that contain no useful data, a TLS | |||
| implementation MUST reject empty TLS handshake records and any record | implementation MUST reject empty TLS handshake records and any record | |||
| that is not permitted by the TLS state machine. Any TLS application | that is not permitted by the TLS state machine. Any TLS application | |||
| data or alerts that is received prior to the end of the handshake | data or alerts that is received prior to the end of the handshake | |||
| MUST be treated as a fatal error. | MUST be treated as a fatal error. | |||
| 8.2. Use of 0-RTT Keys | 9.2. Use of 0-RTT Keys | |||
| If 0-RTT keys are available, the lack of replay protection means that | If 0-RTT keys are available, the lack of replay protection means that | |||
| restrictions on their use are necessary to avoid replay attacks on | restrictions on their use are necessary to avoid replay attacks on | |||
| the protocol. | the protocol. | |||
| A client MUST only use 0-RTT keys to protect data that is idempotent. | A client MUST only use 0-RTT keys to protect data that is idempotent. | |||
| A client MAY wish to apply additional restrictions on what data it | A client MAY wish to apply additional restrictions on what data it | |||
| sends prior to the completion of the TLS handshake. A client | sends prior to the completion of the TLS handshake. A client | |||
| otherwise treats 0-RTT keys as equivalent to 1-RTT keys. | otherwise treats 0-RTT keys as equivalent to 1-RTT keys. | |||
| A client that receives an indication that its 0-RTT data has been | A client that receives an indication that its 0-RTT data has been | |||
| accepted by a server can send 0-RTT data until it receives all of the | accepted by a server can send 0-RTT data until it receives all of the | |||
| server's handshake messages. A client SHOULD stop sending 0-RTT data | server's handshake messages. A client SHOULD stop sending 0-RTT data | |||
| if it receives an indication that 0-RTT data has been rejected. | if it receives an indication that 0-RTT data has been rejected. | |||
| A server MUST NOT use 0-RTT keys to protect packets. | A server MUST NOT use 0-RTT keys to protect packets. | |||
| 8.3. Receiving Out-of-Order Protected Frames | 9.3. Receiving Out-of-Order Protected Frames | |||
| Due to reordering and loss, protected packets might be received by an | Due to reordering and loss, protected packets might be received by an | |||
| endpoint before the final TLS handshake messages are received. A | endpoint before the final TLS handshake messages are received. A | |||
| client will be unable to decrypt 1-RTT packets from the server, | client will be unable to decrypt 1-RTT packets from the server, | |||
| whereas a server will be able to decrypt 1-RTT packets from the | whereas a server will be able to decrypt 1-RTT packets from the | |||
| client. | client. | |||
| Packets protected with 1-RTT keys MAY be stored and later decrypted | Packets protected with 1-RTT keys MAY be stored and later decrypted | |||
| and used once the handshake is complete. A server MUST NOT use 1-RTT | and used once the handshake is complete. A server MUST NOT use 1-RTT | |||
| protected packets before verifying either the client Finished message | protected packets before verifying either the client Finished message | |||
| skipping to change at page 30, line 17 ¶ | skipping to change at page 31, line 10 ¶ | |||
| A server could receive packets protected with 0-RTT keys prior to | A server could receive packets protected with 0-RTT keys prior to | |||
| receiving a TLS ClientHello. The server MAY retain these packets for | receiving a TLS ClientHello. The server MAY retain these packets for | |||
| later decryption in anticipation of receiving a ClientHello. | later decryption in anticipation of receiving a ClientHello. | |||
| Receiving and verifying the TLS Finished message is critical in | Receiving and verifying the TLS Finished message is critical in | |||
| ensuring the integrity of the TLS handshake. A server MUST NOT use | ensuring the integrity of the TLS handshake. A server MUST NOT use | |||
| protected packets from the client prior to verifying the client | protected packets from the client prior to verifying the client | |||
| Finished message if its response depends on client authentication. | Finished message if its response depends on client authentication. | |||
| 9. QUIC-Specific Additions to the TLS Handshake | 10. QUIC-Specific Additions to the TLS Handshake | |||
| QUIC uses the TLS handshake for more than just negotiation of | QUIC uses the TLS handshake for more than just negotiation of | |||
| cryptographic parameters. The TLS handshake validates protocol | cryptographic parameters. The TLS handshake validates protocol | |||
| version selection, provides preliminary values for QUIC transport | version selection, provides preliminary values for QUIC transport | |||
| parameters, and allows a server to perform return routeability checks | parameters, and allows a server to perform return routeability checks | |||
| on clients. | on clients. | |||
| 9.1. Protocol and Version Negotiation | 10.1. Protocol and Version Negotiation | |||
| The QUIC version negotiation mechanism is used to negotiate the | The QUIC version negotiation mechanism is used to negotiate the | |||
| version of QUIC that is used prior to the completion of the | version of QUIC that is used prior to the completion of the | |||
| handshake. However, this packet is not authenticated, enabling an | handshake. However, this packet is not authenticated, enabling an | |||
| active attacker to force a version downgrade. | active attacker to force a version downgrade. | |||
| To ensure that a QUIC version downgrade is not forced by an attacker, | To ensure that a QUIC version downgrade is not forced by an attacker, | |||
| version information is copied into the TLS handshake, which provides | version information is copied into the TLS handshake, which provides | |||
| integrity protection for the QUIC negotiation. This does not prevent | integrity protection for the QUIC negotiation. This does not prevent | |||
| version downgrade during the handshake, though it means that such a | version downgrade prior to the completion of the handshake, though it | |||
| downgrade causes a handshake failure. | means that a downgrade causes a handshake failure. | |||
| TLS uses Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) [RFC7301] to | TLS uses Application Layer Protocol Negotiation (ALPN) [RFC7301] to | |||
| select an application protocol. The application-layer protocol MAY | select an application protocol. The application-layer protocol MAY | |||
| restrict the QUIC versions that it can operate over. Servers MUST | restrict the QUIC versions that it can operate over. Servers MUST | |||
| select an application protocol compatible with the QUIC version that | select an application protocol compatible with the QUIC version that | |||
| the client has selected. | the client has selected. | |||
| If the server cannot select a compatible combination of application | If the server cannot select a compatible combination of application | |||
| protocol and QUIC version, it MUST abort the connection. A client | protocol and QUIC version, it MUST abort the connection. A client | |||
| MUST abort a connection if the server picks an incompatible | MUST abort a connection if the server picks an incompatible | |||
| combination of QUIC version and ALPN identifier. | combination of QUIC version and ALPN identifier. | |||
| 9.2. QUIC Transport Parameters Extension | 10.2. QUIC Transport Parameters Extension | |||
| QUIC transport parameters are carried in a TLS extension. Different | QUIC transport parameters are carried in a TLS extension. Different | |||
| versions of QUIC might define a different format for this struct. | versions of QUIC might define a different format for this struct. | |||
| Including transport parameters in the TLS handshake provides | Including transport parameters in the TLS handshake provides | |||
| integrity protection for these values. | integrity protection for these values. | |||
| enum { | enum { | |||
| quic_transport_parameters(26), (65535) | quic_transport_parameters(26), (65535) | |||
| } ExtensionType; | } ExtensionType; | |||
| The "extension_data" field of the quic_transport_parameters extension | The "extension_data" field of the quic_transport_parameters extension | |||
| contains a value that is defined by the version of QUIC that is in | contains a value that is defined by the version of QUIC that is in | |||
| use. The quic_transport_parameters extension carries a | use. The quic_transport_parameters extension carries a | |||
| TransportParameters when the version of QUIC defined in | TransportParameters when the version of QUIC defined in | |||
| [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is used. | [QUIC-TRANSPORT] is used. | |||
| 9.3. Priming 0-RTT | The quic_transport_parameters extension is carried in the ClientHello | |||
| and the EncryptedExtensions messages during the handshake. The | ||||
| extension MAY be included in a NewSessionTicket message. | ||||
| 10.3. Priming 0-RTT | ||||
| QUIC uses TLS without modification. Therefore, it is possible to use | QUIC uses TLS without modification. Therefore, it is possible to use | |||
| a pre-shared key that was obtained in a TLS connection over TCP to | a pre-shared key that was established in a TLS handshake over TCP to | |||
| enable 0-RTT in QUIC. Similarly, QUIC can provide a pre-shared key | enable 0-RTT in QUIC. Similarly, QUIC can provide a pre-shared key | |||
| that can be used to enable 0-RTT in TCP. | that can be used to enable 0-RTT in TCP. | |||
| All the restrictions on the use of 0-RTT apply, with the exception of | All the restrictions on the use of 0-RTT apply, with the exception of | |||
| the ALPN label, which MUST only change to a label that is explicitly | the ALPN label, which MUST only change to a label that is explicitly | |||
| designated as being compatible. The client indicates which ALPN | designated as being compatible. The client indicates which ALPN | |||
| label it has chosen by placing that ALPN label first in the ALPN | label it has chosen by placing that ALPN label first in the ALPN | |||
| extension. | extension. | |||
| The certificate that the server uses MUST be considered valid for | The certificate that the server uses MUST be considered valid for | |||
| skipping to change at page 32, line 5 ¶ | skipping to change at page 32, line 42 ¶ | |||
| Source address validation is not completely portable between | Source address validation is not completely portable between | |||
| different protocol stacks. Even if the source IP address remains | different protocol stacks. Even if the source IP address remains | |||
| constant, the port number is likely to be different. Packet | constant, the port number is likely to be different. Packet | |||
| reflection attacks are still possible in this situation, though the | reflection attacks are still possible in this situation, though the | |||
| set of hosts that can initiate these attacks is greatly reduced. A | set of hosts that can initiate these attacks is greatly reduced. A | |||
| server might choose to avoid source address validation for such a | server might choose to avoid source address validation for such a | |||
| connection, or allow an increase to the amount of data that it sends | connection, or allow an increase to the amount of data that it sends | |||
| toward the client without source validation. | toward the client without source validation. | |||
| 10. Security Considerations | 11. Security Considerations | |||
| There are likely to be some real clangers here eventually, but the | There are likely to be some real clangers here eventually, but the | |||
| current set of issues is well captured in the relevant sections of | current set of issues is well captured in the relevant sections of | |||
| the main text. | the main text. | |||
| Never assume that because it isn't in the security considerations | Never assume that because it isn't in the security considerations | |||
| section it doesn't affect security. Most of this document does. | section it doesn't affect security. Most of this document does. | |||
| 10.1. Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation | 11.1. Packet Reflection Attack Mitigation | |||
| A small ClientHello that results in a large block of handshake | A small ClientHello that results in a large block of handshake | |||
| messages from a server can be used in packet reflection attacks to | messages from a server can be used in packet reflection attacks to | |||
| amplify the traffic generated by an attacker. | amplify the traffic generated by an attacker. | |||
| Certificate caching [RFC7924] can reduce the size of the server's | Certificate caching [RFC7924] can reduce the size of the server's | |||
| handshake messages significantly. | handshake messages significantly. | |||
| QUIC requires that the packet containing a ClientHello be padded to | QUIC requires that the packet containing a ClientHello be padded to a | |||
| the size of the maximum transmission unit (MTU). A server is less | minimum size. A server is less likely to generate a packet | |||
| likely to generate a packet reflection attack if the data it sends is | reflection attack if the data it sends is a small multiple of this | |||
| a small multiple of this size. A server SHOULD use a | size. A server SHOULD use a HelloRetryRequest if the size of the | |||
| HelloRetryRequest if the size of the handshake messages it sends is | handshake messages it sends is likely to significantly exceed the | |||
| likely to significantly exceed the size of the packet containing the | size of the packet containing the ClientHello. | |||
| ClientHello. | ||||
| 10.2. Peer Denial of Service | 11.2. Peer Denial of Service | |||
| QUIC, TLS and HTTP/2 all contain a messages that have legitimate uses | QUIC, TLS and HTTP/2 all contain a messages that have legitimate uses | |||
| in some contexts, but that can be abused to cause a peer to expend | in some contexts, but that can be abused to cause a peer to expend | |||
| processing resources without having any observable impact on the | processing resources without having any observable impact on the | |||
| state of the connection. If processing is disproportionately large | state of the connection. If processing is disproportionately large | |||
| in comparison to the observable effects on bandwidth or state, then | in comparison to the observable effects on bandwidth or state, then | |||
| this could allow a malicious peer to exhaust processing capacity | this could allow a malicious peer to exhaust processing capacity | |||
| without consequence. | without consequence. | |||
| QUIC prohibits the sending of empty "STREAM" frames unless they are | QUIC prohibits the sending of empty "STREAM" frames unless they are | |||
| skipping to change at page 33, line 9 ¶ | skipping to change at page 33, line 48 ¶ | |||
| generate unnecessary work. Once the TLS handshake is complete, | generate unnecessary work. Once the TLS handshake is complete, | |||
| endpoints SHOULD NOT send TLS application data records unless it is | endpoints SHOULD NOT send TLS application data records unless it is | |||
| to hide the length of QUIC records. QUIC packet protection does not | to hide the length of QUIC records. QUIC packet protection does not | |||
| include any allowance for padding; padded TLS application data | include any allowance for padding; padded TLS application data | |||
| records can be used to mask the length of QUIC frames. | records can be used to mask the length of QUIC frames. | |||
| While there are legitimate uses for some redundant packets, | While there are legitimate uses for some redundant packets, | |||
| implementations SHOULD track redundant packets and treat excessive | implementations SHOULD track redundant packets and treat excessive | |||
| volumes of any non-productive packets as indicative of an attack. | volumes of any non-productive packets as indicative of an attack. | |||
| 11. Error codes | 12. Error codes | |||
| The portion of the QUIC error code space allocated for the crypto | The portion of the QUIC error code space allocated for the crypto | |||
| handshake is 0xC0000000-0xFFFFFFFF. The following error codes are | handshake is 0xC0000000-0xFFFFFFFF. The following error codes are | |||
| defined when TLS is used for the crypto handshake: | defined when TLS is used for the crypto handshake: | |||
| TLS_HANDSHAKE_FAILED (0xC000001C): The TLS handshake failed. | TLS_HANDSHAKE_FAILED (0xC000001C): The TLS handshake failed. | |||
| TLS_FATAL_ALERT_GENERATED (0xC000001D): A TLS fatal alert was sent, | TLS_FATAL_ALERT_GENERATED (0xC000001D): A TLS fatal alert was sent, | |||
| causing the TLS connection to end prematurely. | causing the TLS connection to end prematurely. | |||
| TLS_FATAL_ALERT_RECEIVED (0xC000001E): A TLS fatal alert was | TLS_FATAL_ALERT_RECEIVED (0xC000001E): A TLS fatal alert was | |||
| received, causing the TLS connection to end prematurely. | received, causing the TLS connection to end prematurely. | |||
| 12. IANA Considerations | 13. IANA Considerations | |||
| This document has no IANA actions. Yet. | This document does not create any new IANA registries, but it does | |||
| utilize the following registries: | ||||
| 13. References | o QUIC Transport Parameter Registry - IANA is to register the three | |||
| values found in Section 12. | ||||
| 13.1. Normative References | o TLS ExtensionsType Registry - IANA is to register the | |||
| quic_transport_parameters extension found in Section 10.2. | ||||
| Assigning 26 to the extension would be greatly appreciated. The | ||||
| Recommended column is to be marked Yes. | ||||
| o TLS Exporter Label Registry - IANA is requested to register | ||||
| "EXPORTER-QUIC 0-RTT Secret" from Section 5.2.1 as well as | ||||
| "EXPORTER-QUIC client 1-RTT Secret" and "EXPORTER-QUIC server | ||||
| 1-RTT Secret" from Section 5.2.2. The DTLS column is to be marked | ||||
| No. The Recommended column is to be marked Yes. | ||||
| 14. References | ||||
| 14.1. Normative References | ||||
| [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] | [I-D.ietf-tls-tls13] | |||
| Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol | Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol | |||
| Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-19 (work in progress), | Version 1.3", draft-ietf-tls-tls13-20 (work in progress), | |||
| March 2017. | April 2017. | |||
| [QUIC-TRANSPORT] | [QUIC-TRANSPORT] | |||
| Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based | Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based | |||
| Multiplexed and Secure Transport". | Multiplexed and Secure Transport", draft-ietf-quic- | |||
| transport (work in progress), May 2017. | ||||
| [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | [RFC2119] Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate | |||
| Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2119>. | |||
| [RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated | [RFC5116] McGrew, D., "An Interface and Algorithms for Authenticated | |||
| Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008, | Encryption", RFC 5116, DOI 10.17487/RFC5116, January 2008, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5116>. | |||
| [RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand | [RFC5869] Krawczyk, H. and P. Eronen, "HMAC-based Extract-and-Expand | |||
| Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, | Key Derivation Function (HKDF)", RFC 5869, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010, | DOI 10.17487/RFC5869, May 2010, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5869>. | |||
| [RFC7230] Fielding, R., Ed. and J. Reschke, Ed., "Hypertext Transfer | ||||
| Protocol (HTTP/1.1): Message Syntax and Routing", | ||||
| RFC 7230, DOI 10.17487/RFC7230, June 2014, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7230>. | ||||
| [RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan, | [RFC7301] Friedl, S., Popov, A., Langley, A., and E. Stephan, | |||
| "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol | "Transport Layer Security (TLS) Application-Layer Protocol | |||
| Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301, | Negotiation Extension", RFC 7301, DOI 10.17487/RFC7301, | |||
| July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>. | July 2014, <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7301>. | |||
| 13.2. Informative References | 14.2. Informative References | |||
| [AEBounds] | [AEBounds] | |||
| Luykx, A. and K. Paterson, "Limits on Authenticated | Luykx, A. and K. Paterson, "Limits on Authenticated | |||
| Encryption Use in TLS", March 2016, | Encryption Use in TLS", March 2016, | |||
| <http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/~kp/TLS-AEbounds.pdf>. | <http://www.isg.rhul.ac.uk/~kp/TLS-AEbounds.pdf>. | |||
| [FNV] Fowler, G., Noll, L., Vo, K., Eastlake, D., and T. Hansen, | ||||
| "The FNV Non-Cryptographic Hash Algorithm", draft- | ||||
| eastlake-fnv-12 (work in progress), December 2016. | ||||
| [QUIC-HTTP] | [QUIC-HTTP] | |||
| Bishop, M., Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) over | Bishop, M., Ed., "Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) over | |||
| QUIC". | QUIC", draft-ietf-quic-http (work in progress), May 2017. | |||
| [QUIC-RECOVERY] | [QUIC-RECOVERY] | |||
| Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection | Iyengar, J., Ed. and I. Swett, Ed., "QUIC Loss Detection | |||
| and Congestion Control". | and Congestion Control", draft-ietf-quic-recovery (work in | |||
| progress), May 2017. | ||||
| [RFC0793] Postel, J., "Transmission Control Protocol", STD 7, | ||||
| RFC 793, DOI 10.17487/RFC0793, September 1981, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc793>. | ||||
| [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, | [RFC2818] Rescorla, E., "HTTP Over TLS", RFC 2818, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, | DOI 10.17487/RFC2818, May 2000, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc2818>. | |||
| [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., | [RFC5280] Cooper, D., Santesson, S., Farrell, S., Boeyen, S., | |||
| Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key | Housley, R., and W. Polk, "Internet X.509 Public Key | |||
| Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List | Infrastructure Certificate and Certificate Revocation List | |||
| (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, | (CRL) Profile", RFC 5280, DOI 10.17487/RFC5280, May 2008, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc5280>. | |||
| [RFC7540] Belshe, M., Peon, R., and M. Thomson, Ed., "Hypertext | ||||
| Transfer Protocol Version 2 (HTTP/2)", RFC 7540, | ||||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC7540, May 2015, | ||||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7540>. | ||||
| [RFC7924] Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security | [RFC7924] Santesson, S. and H. Tschofenig, "Transport Layer Security | |||
| (TLS) Cached Information Extension", RFC 7924, | (TLS) Cached Information Extension", RFC 7924, | |||
| DOI 10.17487/RFC7924, July 2016, | DOI 10.17487/RFC7924, July 2016, | |||
| <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924>. | <http://www.rfc-editor.org/info/rfc7924>. | |||
| Appendix A. Contributors | Appendix A. Contributors | |||
| Ryan Hamilton was originally an author of this specification. | Ryan Hamilton was originally an author of this specification. | |||
| Appendix B. Acknowledgments | Appendix B. Acknowledgments | |||
| skipping to change at page 35, line 22 ¶ | skipping to change at page 36, line 22 ¶ | |||
| Christian Huitema, Jana Iyengar, Adam Langley, Roberto Peon, Eric | Christian Huitema, Jana Iyengar, Adam Langley, Roberto Peon, Eric | |||
| Rescorla, Ian Swett, and many others. | Rescorla, Ian Swett, and many others. | |||
| Appendix C. Change Log | Appendix C. Change Log | |||
| *RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to | *RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to | |||
| publication of a final version of this document. | publication of a final version of this document. | |||
| Issue and pull request numbers are listed with a leading octothorp. | Issue and pull request numbers are listed with a leading octothorp. | |||
| C.1. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-01: | C.1. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-02 | |||
| o Updates to match changes in transport draft | ||||
| C.2. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-01 | ||||
| o Use TLS alerts to signal TLS errors (#272, #374) | o Use TLS alerts to signal TLS errors (#272, #374) | |||
| o Require ClientHello to fit in a single packet (#338) | o Require ClientHello to fit in a single packet (#338) | |||
| o The second client handshake flight is now sent in the clear (#262, | o The second client handshake flight is now sent in the clear (#262, | |||
| #337) | #337) | |||
| o The QUIC header is included as AEAD Associated Data (#226, #243, | o The QUIC header is included as AEAD Associated Data (#226, #243, | |||
| #302) | #302) | |||
| skipping to change at page 35, line 47 ¶ | skipping to change at page 37, line 5 ¶ | |||
| o Require at least TLS 1.3 (#138) | o Require at least TLS 1.3 (#138) | |||
| o Define transport parameters as a TLS extension (#122) | o Define transport parameters as a TLS extension (#122) | |||
| o Define handling for protected packets before the handshake | o Define handling for protected packets before the handshake | |||
| completes (#39) | completes (#39) | |||
| o Decouple QUIC version and ALPN (#12) | o Decouple QUIC version and ALPN (#12) | |||
| C.2. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-00: | C.3. Since draft-ietf-quic-tls-00 | |||
| o Changed bit used to signal key phase. | o Changed bit used to signal key phase | |||
| o Updated key phase markings during the handshake. | o Updated key phase markings during the handshake | |||
| o Added TLS interface requirements section. | o Added TLS interface requirements section | |||
| o Moved to use of TLS exporters for key derivation. | o Moved to use of TLS exporters for key derivation | |||
| o Moved TLS error code definitions into this document. | o Moved TLS error code definitions into this document | |||
| C.3. Since draft-thomson-quic-tls-01: | C.4. Since draft-thomson-quic-tls-01 | |||
| o Adopted as base for draft-ietf-quic-tls. | o Adopted as base for draft-ietf-quic-tls | |||
| o Updated authors/editors list. | o Updated authors/editors list | |||
| o Added status note. | o Added status note | |||
| Authors' Addresses | Authors' Addresses | |||
| Martin Thomson (editor) | Martin Thomson (editor) | |||
| Mozilla | Mozilla | |||
| Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com | Email: martin.thomson@gmail.com | |||
| Sean Turner (editor) | Sean Turner (editor) | |||
| sn3rd | sn3rd | |||
| Email: sean@sn3rd.com | ||||
| End of changes. 138 change blocks. | ||||
| 312 lines changed or deleted | 415 lines changed or added | |||
This html diff was produced by rfcdiff 1.45. The latest version is available from http://tools.ietf.org/tools/rfcdiff/ | ||||