QUIC Version Aliasing
draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-07

Document Type Active Internet-Draft (individual)
Author Martin Duke 
Last updated 2021-10-25
Replaces draft-ietf-quic-version-aliasing
Stream (None)
Intended RFC status (None)
Formats plain text html xml pdf htmlized bibtex
Additional Resources
- GitHub Repository
Stream Stream state (No stream defined)
Consensus Boilerplate Unknown
RFC Editor Note (None)
IESG IESG state I-D Exists
Telechat date
Responsible AD (None)
Send notices to (None)
QUIC                                                             M. Duke
Internet-Draft                                         F5 Networks, Inc.
Intended status: Experimental                            25 October 2021
Expires: 28 April 2022

                         QUIC Version Aliasing
                  draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-07

Abstract

   The QUIC transport protocol preserves its future extensibility partly
   by specifying its version number.  There will be a relatively small
   number of published version numbers for the foreseeable future.  This
   document provides a method for clients and servers to negotiate the
   use of other version numbers in subsequent connections and encrypts
   Initial Packets using secret keys instead of standard ones.  If a
   sizeable subset of QUIC connections use this mechanism, this should
   prevent middlebox ossification around the current set of published
   version numbers and the contents of QUIC Initial packets, as well as
   improving the protocol's privacy properties.

Discussion Venues

   This note is to be removed before publishing as an RFC.

   Discussion of this document takes place on the mailing list
   (quic@ietf.org), which is archived at
   https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/.

   Source for this draft and an issue tracker can be found at
   https://github.com/martinduke/quic-version-aliasing.

Status of This Memo

   This Internet-Draft is submitted in full conformance with the
   provisions of BCP 78 and BCP 79.

   Internet-Drafts are working documents of the Internet Engineering
   Task Force (IETF).  Note that other groups may also distribute
   working documents as Internet-Drafts.  The list of current Internet-
   Drafts is at https://datatracker.ietf.org/drafts/current/.

   Internet-Drafts are draft documents valid for a maximum of six months
   and may be updated, replaced, or obsoleted by other documents at any
   time.  It is inappropriate to use Internet-Drafts as reference
   material or to cite them other than as "work in progress."

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   This Internet-Draft will expire on 28 April 2022.

Copyright Notice

   Copyright (c) 2021 IETF Trust and the persons identified as the
   document authors.  All rights reserved.

   This document is subject to BCP 78 and the IETF Trust's Legal
   Provisions Relating to IETF Documents (https://trustee.ietf.org/
   license-info) in effect on the date of publication of this document.
   Please review these documents carefully, as they describe your rights
   and restrictions with respect to this document.  Code Components
   extracted from this document must include Simplified BSD License text
   as described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
   provided without warranty as described in the Simplified BSD License.

Table of Contents

   1.  Introduction  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   3
     1.1.  Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   4
   2.  Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   5
     2.1.  Relationship to ECH and QUIC Protected Initials . . . . .   5
   3.  The Version Alias Transport Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . .   6
     3.1.  Version Number Generation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   7
     3.2.  Initial Token Extension (ITE) Generation  . . . . . . . .   7
     3.3.  Salt and Packet Length Offset Generation  . . . . . . . .   8
     3.4.  Expiration Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   8
     3.5.  Format  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   9
     3.6.  Multiple Servers for One Domain . . . . . . . . . . . . .  10
     3.7.  Multiple Entities With One Load Balancer  . . . . . . . .  10
   4.  Client Behavior . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  11
     4.1.  The aliasing_parameters Transport Parameter . . . . . . .  12
   5.  Server Actions on Aliased Version Numbers . . . . . . . . . .  12
   6.  Fallback  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  13
     6.1.  Bad Salt Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  14
     6.2.  Client Response to Bad Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  15
     6.3.  Server Response to version_aliasing Transport
           Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   7.  Considerations for Retry Packets  . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  16
   8.  Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.1.  Endpoint Impersonation  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.2.  First-Connection Privacy  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  17
     8.3.  Forcing Downgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.4.  Initial Packet Injection  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.5.  Retry Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  18
     8.6.  Increased Linkability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.7.  Salt Polling  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  19
     8.8.  Server Fingerprinting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  20

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

     8.9.  Increased Processing of Garbage UDP Packets . . . . . . .  20
     8.10. Increased Retry Overhead  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     8.11. Request Forgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
   9.  IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.1.  QUIC Version Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.2.  QUIC Transport Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . .  21
     9.3.  QUIC Transport Error Codes Registry . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   10. References  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.1.  Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
     10.2.  Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  22
   Appendix A.  Acknowledgments  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
   Appendix B.  Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  23
     B.1.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-05 . . . . . . . .  23
     B.2.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-04 . . . . . . . .  23
     B.3.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-03 . . . . . . . .  23
     B.4.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-02 . . . . . . . .  23
     B.5.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-01 . . . . . . . .  23
     B.6.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-00 . . . . . . . .  23
   Author's Address  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  24

1.  Introduction

   The QUIC version number is critical to future extensibility of the
   protocol ([RFC9000]).  Past experience with other protocols, such as
   TLS1.3 [RFC8446], shows that middleboxes might attempt to enforce
   that QUIC packets use versions known at the time the middlebox was
   implemented.  This deters deployment of experimental and standard
   versions on the internet.

   Each version of QUIC has a "salt" [RFC9001] that is used to derive
   the keys used to encrypt Initial packets.  As each salt is published
   in a standards document, any observer can decrypt these packets and
   inspect the contents, including a TLS Client Hello.  A subsidiary
   mechanism like Encrypted Client Hello [ECHO] might protect some of
   the TLS fields inside a TLS Client Hello.

   This document proposes "QUIC Version Aliasing," a standard way for
   servers to advertise the availability of other versions inside the
   cryptographic protection of a QUIC handshake.  These versions are
   syntactically identical to the QUIC version in which the
   communication takes place, but use a different salt.  In subsequent
   communications, the client uses the new version number and encrypts
   its Initial packets with a key derived from the provided salt.  These
   version numbers and salts are unique to the client.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   If a large subset of QUIC traffic adopts his technique, middleboxes
   will be unable to enforce particular version numbers or policy based
   on Client Hello contents without incurring unacceptable penalties on
   users.  This would simultaneously protect the protocol against
   ossification and improve its privacy properties.

1.1.  Terminology

   The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT",
   "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this
   document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119 [RFC2119].

   In this document, these words will appear with that interpretation
   only when in ALL CAPS.  Lower case uses of these words are not to be
   interpreted as carrying significance described in RFC 2119.

   A "standard version" is a QUIC version that would be advertised in a
   QUIC version negotiation and conforms to a specification.  Any
   aliased version corresponds to a standard version in all its formats
   and behaviors, except for the version number field in long headers.
   To be compatible with version aliasing, the first client packet in a
   standard version MUST encode the packet type and token as if it were
   a QUIC version 1 initial packet.  That is:

   *  The most significant bit MUST be 1.

   *  The third and fourth most significant bits MUST be zero.

   *  The first field after the Source Connection ID MUST be a variable-
      length integer including the length of a token.

   *  The second field after the Destination Connection ID MUST be a
      field, with length indicated by the previous field, that contains
      opaque data generated by the server.

   *  There must be a variable-length integer that encodes the packet
      length, unprotected in the header.

   An "aliased version" is a version with a number generated in
   accordance with this document.  Except for the version field in long
   headers, it conforms entirely to the specification of the standard
   version.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

2.  Protocol Overview

   When they instantiate a connection, servers select an alternate
   32-bit version number, and optionally an initial token extension, for
   the next connection at random and securely derive a salt and Packet
   Length Offset from those values using a repeatable process.  They
   communicate this using a transport parameter extension including the
   version, initial token extension, salt, Packet Length Offset, and an
   expiration time for that value.

   If a client next connects to that server within the indicated
   expiration time, it MAY use the provided version number and encrypt
   its Initial Packets using a key derived from the provided salt.  It
   adds the Packet Length Offset to the true packet length when encoding
   it in the long header.  If the server provided an Initial Token
   Extension, the client puts it in the Initial Packet token field.  If
   there is another token the client wishes to include, it appends the
   Initial Token Extension to that token.  The server can reconstruct
   the salt and Packet Length Offset from the requested version and
   token, and proceed with the connection normally.

   The Packet Length Offset provides a low-cost way for the server to
   verify it can derive a valid salt from the inputs without trial
   decryption.  This has important security implications, as described
   in Section 8.5.

   When generating a salt and Packet Length Offset, servers can choose
   between doing so randomly and storing the mapping, or using a
   cryptographic process to transform the aliased version number and
   token extension into the salt.  The two options provide a simple
   tradeoff between computational complexity and storage requirements.

2.1.  Relationship to ECH and QUIC Protected Initials

   The TLS Encrypted Client Hello [ECHO] shares some goals with this
   document.  It encodes an "inner" encrypted Client Hello in a TLS
   extension in an "outer" Client Hello.  The encryption uses asymmetric
   keys with the server's public key distributed via an out-of-band
   mechanism like DNS.  The inner Client Hello contains any privacy-
   sensitive information and is only readable with the server's private
   key.

   Significantly, unlike QUIC Version Aliasing, ECH can operate on the
   first connection between a client and server.  However, from the
   second connection QUIC version aliasing provides additional benefits.
   It:

   *  greases QUIC header fields and packet formats;

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   *  protects all of the TLS Client Hello and Server Hello;

   *  mitigates Retry injection attacks;

   *  does not require a mechanism to distribute the public key;

   *  uses smaller Client Hello messages, which might allow a larger
      0RTT packet in the same datagram; and

   *  relies on computationally cheap symmetric encryption.

   If ECH is operating in "Split Mode", where a client-facing server is
   using the SNI information to route to a backend server, the client-
   facing server MUST have the cryptographic context relevant to version
   aliasing at the backend server to successfully extract the SNI for
   routing purposes.  Furthermore, either all backend servers must share
   this context, or the client-facing server must trial decrypt the
   incoming packet with all possible derived salts.

   Note that in the event of the server losing state, the two approaches
   have a similar fallback: ECH uses information in the outer Client
   Hello, and Version Aliasing requires a connection using a standard
   version.  In either case, maintaining privacy requires the outer or
   standard version Client Hello to exclude privacy-sensitive
   information.  However, ECH will allow confidential transmission of
   data in 1 RTT, while Version Aliasing requires 2 RTTs to resume.
   This mechanism is also relevant to mitigation of downgrade attacks
   (see Section 8.3).

   Similarly, the QUIC Protected Initial [QUIC-PI] uses the ECH
   distribution mechanism to generate secure initial keys and Retry
   integrity tags.  While still dependent on a key distribution system,
   asymmetric encryption, and relatively large Initial packets, it
   offers similar protection properties to Version Aliasing while still
   not greasing the version field.

   A maximally privacy-protecting client might use Protected Initials
   for any connection attempts for which it does not have an unexpired
   aliased version, and QUIC version aliasing otherwise.

   See also section 1.1 of [QUIC-PI] for further discussion of
   tradeoffs.

3.  The Version Alias Transport Parameter

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

3.1.  Version Number Generation

   Servers MUST use a random process to generate version numbers.  This
   version number MUST NOT correspond to a QUIC version the server
   advertises in QUIC Version Negotiation packets or transport
   parameters.  Servers SHOULD also exclude version numbers used in
   known specifications or experiments to avoid confusion at clients,
   whether or not they have plans to support those specifications.

   Servers MAY use version numbers reserved for grease in Section 15.1
   of [RFC9000], even though they might be advertised in Version
   Negotiation Packets.

   Servers MUST NOT use client-controlled information (e.g. the client
   IP address) in the random process, see Section 8.7.

   Servers MUST NOT advertise these versions in QUIC Version Negotiation
   packets.

3.2.  Initial Token Extension (ITE) Generation

   Servers SHOULD generate an Initial Token Extension (ITE) to provide
   additional entropy in salt generation.  Two clients that receive the
   same version number but different extensions will not be able to
   decode each other's Initial Packets.

   Servers MAY choose any length that will allow client Initial Packets
   to fit within the minimum QUIC packet size of 1200 octets.  A four-
   octet extension is RECOMMENDED.  The ITE MUST appear to be random to
   observers.

   If a server supports multiple standard versions, it MUST either
   encode the standard version of the current connection in the ITE or
   store it in a lookup table.

   If the server chooses to encode the standard version, it MUST be
   cryptographically protected.

   Encoded standard versions MUST be robust to false positives.  That
   is, if decoded with a new key, the version encoding must return as
   invalid, rather than an incorrect value.

   Alternatively, servers MAY store a mapping of unexpired aliased
   versions and ITEs to standard versions.  This mapping SHOULD NOT
   create observable patterns, e.g. one plaintext bit indicates if the
   standard version is 1 or 2.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   The server MUST be able to distinguish ITEs from Resumption and Retry
   tokens in incoming Initial Packets that contain an aliased version
   number.  As the server controls the lengths and encoding of each,
   there are many ways to guarantee this.

3.3.  Salt and Packet Length Offset Generation

   The salt is an opaque 20-octet field.  It is used to generate Initial
   connection keys using the process described in [RFC9001].

   The Packet Length Offset is a 64-bit unsigned integer with a maximum
   value of 2^62 - 1.  Clients MUST ignore a transport parameter with a
   value that exceeds this limit.

   To reduce header overhead, servers MAY consistently use a Packet
   Length Offset of zero if and only if it either (1) never sends Retry
   packets, or (2) can guarantee, through the use of persistent storage
   or other means, that it will never lose the cryptographic state
   required to generate the salt before the promised expiration time.
   Section 8.5 describes the implications if it uses zero without
   meeting these conditions.

   Servers MUST either generate a random salt and Packet Length Offset
   and store a mapping of aliased version and ITE to salt and offset, or
   generate the salt and offset using a cryptographic method that uses
   the version number, ITE, and only server state that is persistent
   across connections.

   If the latter, servers MUST implement a method that it can repeat
   deterministically at a later time to derive the salt and offset from
   the incoming version number and ITE.  It MUST NOT use client
   controlled information other than the version number and ITE; for
   example, the client's IP address and port.

3.4.  Expiration Time

   Servers should select an expiration time in seconds, measured from
   the instant the transport parameter is first sent.  This time SHOULD
   be less than the time until the server expects to support new QUIC
   versions, rotate the keys used to encode information in the version
   number, or rotate the keys used in salt generation.

   Furthermore, the expiration time SHOULD be short enough to frustrate
   a salt polling attack (Section 8.7)

   Conversely, an extremely short expiration time will often force the
   client to use standard QUIC version numbers and salts.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

3.5.  Format

   This document defines a new transport parameter extension for QUIC
   with provisional identifier 0x5641.  The contents of the value field
   are indicated below.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Version (32)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                            Salt (160)                         |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +                                                               +
   |                                                               |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                     Packet Length Offset (i)                  |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                         Expiration (i)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                Initial Token Extension (variable)             |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

             Figure 1: Version Alias Transport Parameter value

   The definition of the fields is described above.  Note that the
   "Expiration" field is in seconds, and its length is encoded using the
   Variable Length Integer encoding from Section 16 of [RFC9000].

   The Packet Length Offset is also encoded as a Variable Length
   Integer.

   Clients can compute the length of the Initial Token Extension by
   subtracting known and encoded field lengths from the overall
   transport parameter length.

   Note that servers that support version aliasing need not send the
   transport parameter on every connection.  Therefore, a client MAY
   attempt to connect with an unexpired aliased version, even if in its
   most recent connection it did not receive the transport parameter.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   Clients MAY remember the value in this transport parameter for future
   connections.  Servers MUST either store the contents of the transport
   parameter, or preserve the state to compute the full contents based
   on what the client provides.

3.6.  Multiple Servers for One Domain

   If multiple servers serve the same entity behind a load balancer, all
   such servers SHOULD either have a common configuration for encoding
   standard versions and computing salts, or share a common database of
   mappings.  They MUST NOT generate version numbers that any of them
   would advertise in a Version Negotiation Packet or Transport
   Parameter.

3.7.  Multiple Entities With One Load Balancer

   If mutually mistrustful entities share the same IP address and port,
   incoming packets are usually routed by examining the SNI at a load
   balancer server that routes the traffic.  This use case makes
   concealing the contents of the Client Initial especially attractive,
   as the IP address reveals less information.  There are several
   solutions to solve this problem.

   *  All entities have a common crytographic context for deriving salts
      and Packet Length Offsets from the version number and ITE.  This
      is straightforward but also increases the risk that the keys will
      leak to an attacker which could then decode Initial packets from
      point where the packets are observable.  This is therefore NOT
      RECOMMENDED.

   *  Each entity has its own cryptographic context, shared with the
      load balancer.  This requires the load balancer to trial decrypt
      each incoming Initial with each context.  As there is no standard
      algorithm for encoding information in the Version and ITE, this
      involves synchronizing the method, not just the key material.

   *  Each entity reports its Version Aliasing Transport Parameters to
      the load balancer out-of-band.

   *  Each entity is assigned certain version numbers for use.  This
      assignment SHOULD NOT follow observable patterns (e.g., assigning
      ranges to each entity), as this would allow observers to obtain
      the target server based on the version.  The scheme SHOULD assign
      all available version numbers to maximize the entropy of the
      encoding.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 10]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   Note that [ECHO] and [QUIC-PI] solve this problem elegantly by only
   holding the private key at the load balancer, which decodes the
   sensitive information on behalf of the back-end server.

4.  Client Behavior

   When a client receives the Version Alias Transport Parameter, it MAY
   cache the version number, ITE, salt, Packet Length Offset, and the
   expiration of these values.  It MAY use the version number and ITE in
   a subsequent connection and compute the initial keys using the
   provided salt.

   The Client MUST NOT use the contents of a Version Alias transport
   parameter if the handshake does not (1) later authenticate the server
   name or (2) result in both endpoints computing the same 1-RTT keys.
   See Section 8.1.  The authenticated server name MAY be a "public
   name" distributed as described in [ECHO] rather than the true target
   domain.

   Clients MUST NOT advertise aliased versions in the Version
   Negotiation Transport Parameter unless they support a standard
   version with the same number.  Including that number signals support
   for the standard version, not the aliased version.

   Clients SHOULD NOT attempt to use the provided version number and
   salt after the provided Expiration time has elapsed.

   Clients MAY decline to use the provided version number or salt in
   more than one connection.  It SHOULD do so if its IP address has
   changed between two connection attempts.  Using a consistent version
   number can link the client across connection attempts.

   Clients MUST use the same standard version to format the Initial
   Packet as the standard version used in the connection that provided
   the aliased version.

   If the server provided an ITE, the client MUST append it to any
   Initial Packet token it is including from a Retry packet or NEW_TOKEN
   frame, if it is using the associated aliased version.  If there is no
   such token, it simply includes the ITE as the entire token.

   When using an aliased version, the client MUST include a
   aliasing_parameters transport parameter in its Client Hello.

   The QUIC Token Length field MUST include the length of both any Retry
   or NEW_TOKEN token and the ITE.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 11]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   The Length fields of all Initial, Handshake, and 0-RTT packets in the
   connection are set to the value described in [RFC9000] plus the
   provided Packet Length Offset, modulo 2^62.

   If a client receives an aliased version number that matches a
   standard version that the client supports, it SHOULD assume the
   server does not support the standard version and MUST use aliased
   version behaviors in any connection with the server using that
   version number.

   If the response to an Initial packet using the provided version is a
   Version Negotiation Packet, the client SHOULD assume that the server
   no longer supports version aliasing and attempt to connect with one
   of the advertised versions (while observing the considerations in
   Section 8.3).

   If the response to an Initial packet is a Bad Salt packet, the client
   follows the procedures in Section 6.

4.1.  The aliasing_parameters Transport Parameter

   This transport parameter has the following format.  Its provisional
   type is 0x4150.

    0                   1                   2                   3
    0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 0 1
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                           Version (32)                        |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
   |                      Initial Token (variable)                 |
   +-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+

   The Version field matches the one in the packet header.

   The Initial Token field matches the Initial Token in the packet
   header, including any Retry token, NEW_TOKEN token, and Initial Token
   Extension.  Its length is inferred from the specified length of the
   parameter.

   The purpose of this parameter is to validate the contents of these
   header fields by including it in the TLS handshake transcript.

5.  Server Actions on Aliased Version Numbers

   When a server receives an Initial packet with an unsupported version
   number, it SHOULD send a Version Negotiation Packet if it is
   configured not to generate that version number at random.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 12]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   Otherwise, it extracts the ITE, if any, and either looks up the
   corresponding salt in its database or computes it using the technique
   originally used to derive the salt from the version number and ITE.

   The server similarly obtains the Packet Length Offset and subtracts
   it from the provided Length field, modulo 2^62.  If the resulting
   value is larger than the entire UDP datagram, the server discards the
   packet and SHOULD follow the procedure in Section 6.  The server MAY
   apply further checks (e.g. against the minimum QUIC packet length) to
   further reduce the very small probability of a false positive.

   If the server supports multiple standard versions, it uses the
   standard version extracted by the ITE or stored in the mapping to
   parse the decrypted packet.

   In all packets with long headers, the server uses the aliased version
   number and adds the Packet Length Offset to the length field.

   In the extremely unlikely event that the Packet Length Offset
   resulted in a legal value but the salt is incorrect, the packet may
   fail authentication.  The server should drop these packets in case
   this is the result of packet corruption along the path.

   To reduce linkability for the client, servers SHOULD provide a new
   Version Alias transport parameter, with a new version number, ITE,
   salt, and Packet Length Offset, each time a client connects.
   However, issuing version numbers to a client SHOULD be rate-limited
   to mitigate the salt polling attack Section 8.7 and MAY cease to
   clients that are consistently connecting with standard versions.

   If there is no aliasing_parameters transport parameter, or the
   contents do not match the fields in the Initial header, the server
   MUST terminate the connection with a TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.

6.  Fallback

   If the server has lost its encryption state, it may not be able to
   generate the correct salts from previously provided versions and
   ITEs.  The fallback mechanism provides a means of recovering from
   this state while protecting against injection of messages by
   attackers.

   When the packet length computation in Section 5 fails, it signals
   either that the packet has been corrupted in transit, or the client
   is using a transport parameter issued before a server failure.  In
   either case, the server sends a Bad Salt packet.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 13]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

6.1.  Bad Salt Packets

   The Bad Salt packet has a long header and a reserved version number,
   because it must not be confused with a legitimate packet in any
   standard version.  They are not encrypted, not authenticated, and
   have the following format:

   Bad Salt Packet {
       Header Form (1) = 1,
       Unused (7),
       Version (32) = TBD (provisional value = 0x56415641),
       Destination Connection ID Length (8),
       Destination Connection ID (0..2040),
       Source Connection ID Length (8),
       Source Connection ID (0..2040),
       Supported Version (32) ...,
       Integrity Tag (128),
   }

   Unused: The unused field is filled randomly by the sender and ignored
   on receipt.

   Version: The version field is reserved for use by the Bad Salt
   packet.

   Destination and Source Connection IDs and Lengths: These fields are
   copied from the client packet, with the source fields from the client
   packet written into the destination fields of the Bad Salt, and vice
   versa.

   Supported Version: A list of standard QUIC version numbers which the
   server supports.  The number of versions is inferred from the length
   of the datagram.

   Integrity Tag: To compute the integrity tag, the server creates a
   pseudo-packet by contents of the entire client Initial UDP payload,
   including any coalesced packets, with the Bad Salt packet:

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 14]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   Bad Salt Pseudo-Packet {
       Client UDP Payload (9600..),
       Header Form (1) = 1,
       Unused (7),
       Version (32) = TBD (provisional value = 0x56415641),
       Destination Connection ID Length (8),
       Destination Connection ID (0..2040),
       Source Connection ID Length (8),
       Source Connection ID (0..2040),
       Supported Version (32) ...,
   }

   In a process similar to the Retry Integrity Tag, the Bad Salt
   Integrity Tag is computed as the output of AEAD_AES_128_GCM with the
   following inputs:

   *  The secret key, K, is 0xbe0c690b9f66575a1d766b54e368c84e.

   *  The nonce, N, is 0x461599d35d632bf2239825bb.

   *  The plaintext, P, is empty.

   *  The associated data, A, is the Bad Salt pseudo-packet.

   These values are derived using HKDF-Expand-Label from the secret
   0x767fedaff519a2aad117d8fd3ce0a04178ed205ab0d43425723e436853c4b3e2
   and labels "quicva key" and "quicva iv".

   The integrity tag serves to validate the integrity of both the Bad
   Salt packet itself and the Initial packet that triggered it.

6.2.  Client Response to Bad Salt

   Upon receipt of a Bad Salt packet, the client SHOULD wait for a Probe
   Timeout (PTO) to check if the Bad Salt packet was injected by an
   attacker, and a valid response arrives from the actual server.

   After waiting, the client checks the Integrity Tag using its record
   of the Initial it sent.  If this fails, the client SHOULD assume
   packet corruption and resend the Initial packet.

   If the verification succeeds, the client SHOULD attempt to connect
   with one of the listed standard versions.  It SHOULD observe the
   privacy considerations in Section 8.2.  It MUST include a
   version_aliaising Transport Parameter in the Client Hello, that
   enumerates the aliased version and parameters it just tried to
   connect with.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 15]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   Once it sends this transport parameter, the client MUST NOT attempt
   to connect with that aliased version again.

   The original Client Initial is not part of the new connection.
   Therefore, the Connection IDs can change, and the original client
   hello is not part of the transcript for TLS key derivation.

   Note that the client never sends this transport parameter with an
   aliased version.  A server that receives such a packet MUST terminate
   the connection with a TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.

6.3.  Server Response to version_aliasing Transport Parameter

   A client version_aliasing transport parameter tells the server that
   the client received a Bad Salt packet.  The server checks if could
   have generated that version aliasing transport parameter given its
   current configuration; i.e. if using the version and ITE as inputs
   results in the same salt and Packet Length Offset.

   If the salt or Packet Length Offset are invalid, the server SHOULD
   continue with the connection and SHOULD issue a new version_aliasing
   transport parameter.

   If the salt and Packet Length Offset are valid, the server MUST
   terminate the connection with the error code INVALID_BAD_SALT.

7.  Considerations for Retry Packets

   QUIC Retry packets reduce the load on servers during periods of
   stress by forcing the client to prove it possesses the IP address
   before the server decrypts any Initial Packets or establishes any
   connection state.  Version aliasing substantially complicates the
   process.

   If a server has to send a Retry packet, the required format is
   ambiguous without understanding which standard version to use.  If
   all supported standard versions use the same Retry format, it simply
   uses that format with the client-provided version number.

   If the supported standard versions use different Retry formats, the
   server obtains the standard version via lookup or decoding and
   formats a Retry containing the aliased version number accordingly.

   Servers generate the Retry Integrity Tag of a Retry Packet using the
   procedure in Section 5.8 of [RFC9001].  However, for aliased
   versions, the secret key K uses the first 16 octets of the aliased
   salt instead of the key provided in the specification.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 16]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   Clients MUST ignore Retry packets that contain a QUIC version other
   than the version it used in its Initial Packet.

   Servers MUST NOT reply to a packet with an incorrect Length field in
   its long header with a Retry packet; it SHOULD reply with Bad Salt as
   described above.

8.  Security and Privacy Considerations

   This document intends to improve the existing security and privacy
   properties of QUIC by dramatically improving the secrecy of QUIC
   Initial Packets.  However, there are new attacks against this
   mechanism.

8.1.  Endpoint Impersonation

   An on-path attacker might respond to an Initial Packet with a
   standard version with a Version Aliasing Transport Parameter that
   then caused the client to reveal sensitive information in a
   subsequent Initial.

   As described in Section 4, clients cannot use the contents of a
   Version Aliasing transport parameter until they have authenticated
   the source as a trusted domain, and have verified that the 1RTT key
   derivation is identical at both endpoints.

8.2.  First-Connection Privacy

   As version aliasing requires one connection over a standard QUIC
   version to acquire initial state, this initial connection leaks some
   information about the true target.

   The client MAY alter its Initial Packet to sanitize sensitive
   information and obtain another aliased version before proceeding with
   its true request.  However, the client Initial must lead to the
   authentication of a domain name the client trusts to provide accurate
   Version Aliasing information (possibly the public_name from an
   Encrypted Client Hello configuration from [ECHO]).  Advice for the
   Outer ClientHello in Section 10.5 of [ECHO] applies here.

   Endpoints are encouraged to instead use [ECHO] or [QUIC-PI] to
   increase privacy on the first connection between a client and server.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 17]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

8.3.  Forcing Downgrade

   An attacker can attempt to force a client to send an Initial that
   uses a standard version by injecting a Version Negotiation packet
   (which implies the server no longer supports aliasing) or a Bad Salt
   packet (which implies the server has a new cryptographic context).

   The weak form of this attack observes the Initial and injects the
   Version Negotiation or Bad Salt packet, but cannot drop the Initial.
   To counteract this, a client SHOULD NOT respond to these packets
   until they have waited for Probe Timeout (PTO) for a valid server
   Initial to arrive.

   The strong form features an attacker that can drop Initial packets.
   In this case, the client can either abandon the connection attempt or
   connect with an standard version.

   If it connects with a standard version, it should consider the
   privacy advice in Section 8.2.

   Furthermore, if it received a Bad Salt packet, the client sends a
   Version Aliasing transport parameter to detect the downgrade attack,
   and the server will terminate the connection if the Bad Salt packet
   was an attack.

   If the client received a Version Negotiation packet, it MUST
   implement a downgrade detection mechanism such as
   [I-D.ietf-quic-version-negotiation] or abandon the connection
   attempt.  If it subsequent detects a downgrade detection, or
   discovers that the server does not support the same mechanism, it
   terminates the connection attempt.

8.4.  Initial Packet Injection

   QUIC version 1 handshakes are vulnerable to DoS from observers for
   the short interval that endpoints keep Initial keys (usually ~1.5
   RTTS), since Initial Packets are not authenticated.  With version
   aliasing, attackers do not have the necessary keys to launch such an
   attack.

8.5.  Retry Injection

   QUIC Version 1 Retry packets are spoofable, as they follow a fixed
   format, are sent in plaintext, and the integrity protection uses a
   widely known key.  As a result, QUIC Version 1 has verification
   mechanisms in subsequent packets of the connection to validate the
   origin of the Retry.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 18]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   Version aliasing largely frustrates this attack.  As the integrity
   check key is derived from the secret salt, packets from attackers
   will fail their integrity check and the client will ignore them.

   The Packet Length Offset is important in this framework.  Without
   this mechanism, servers would have to perform trial decryption to
   verify the client was using the correct salt.  As this does not occur
   before sending Retry Packets, servers would not detect disagreement
   on the salt beforehand and would send a Retry packet signed with a
   different salt than the client expects.  Therefore, a client that
   received a Retry packet with an invalid integrity check would not be
   able to distinguish between the following possibilities:

   *  a Retry packet corrupted in the network, which should be ignored;

   *  a Retry packet generated by an attacker, which should be ignored;
      or

   *  a Retry packet from a server that lost its cryptographic state,
      meaning that further communication with aliased versions is
      impossible and the client should revert to using a standard
      version.

   The Packet Length Offset introduces sufficient entropy to make the
   third possibility exceedingly unlikely.

8.6.  Increased Linkability

   As each version number and ITE is unique to each client, if a client
   uses one twice, those two connections are extremely likely to be from
   the same host.  If the client has changed IP address, this is a
   significant increase in linkability relative to QUIC with a standard
   version numbers.

8.7.  Salt Polling

   Observers that wish to decode Initial Packets might open a large
   number of connections to the server in an effort to obtain part of
   the mapping of version numbers and ITEs to salts for a server.  While
   storage-intensive, this attack could increase the probability that at
   least some version-aliased connections are observable.  There are
   three mitigations servers can execute against this attack:

   *  use a longer ITE to increase the entropy of the salt,

   *  rate-limit transport parameters sent to a particular client, and/
      or

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 19]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   *  set a low expiration time to reduce the lifetime of the attacker's
      database.

   Segmenting the version number space based on client information, i.e.
   using only a subset of version numbers for a certain IP address
   range, would significantly amplify an attack.  Observers will
   generally be on the path to the client and be able to mimic having an
   identical IP address.  Segmentation in this way would dramatically
   reduce the search space for attackers.  Thus, servers are prohibited
   from using this mechanism.

8.8.  Server Fingerprinting

   The server chooses its own ITE length, and the length of this ITE is
   likely to be discoverable to an observer.  Therefore, the destination
   server of a client Initial packet might be decipherable with an ITE
   length along with other observables.  A four-octet ITE is
   RECOMMENDED.  Deviations from this value should be carefully
   considered in light of this property.

   Servers with acute needs for higher or lower entropy than provided by
   a four- octet ITE are RECOMMENDED to converge on common lengths to
   reduce the uniqueness of their signatures.

8.9.  Increased Processing of Garbage UDP Packets

   As QUIC shares the UDP protocol number with other UDP applications,
   in some deployments it may be possible for traffic intended for other
   UDP applications to arrive at a QUIC server endpoint.  When servers
   support a finite set of version numbers, a valid version number field
   is a strong indicator the packet is, in fact, QUIC.  If the version
   number is invalid, a QUIC Version Negotiation is a low-cost response
   that triggers very early in packet processing.

   However, a server that provides version aliasing is prepared to
   accept almost any version number.  As a result, many more
   sufficiently sized UDP payloads with the first bit set to '1' are
   potential QUIC Initial Packets that require computation of a salt and
   Packet Length Offset.

   Note that a nonzero Packet Length Offset will allow the server to
   drop all but approximately 1 in every 2^49 packets, so trial
   decryption is unnecessary.

   While not a more potent attack then simply sending valid Initial
   Packets, servers may have to provision additional resources to
   address this possibility.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 20]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

8.10.  Increased Retry Overhead

   This document requires two small cryptographic operations to build a
   Retry packet instead of one, placing more load on servers when
   already under load.

8.11.  Request Forgery

   Section 21.4 of [RFC9000] describes the request forgery attack, where
   a QUIC endpoint can cause its peer to deliver packets to a victim
   with specific content.

   Version aliasing allows the server to specify the contents of the
   version field and part of the token field in Initial packets sent by
   the client, potentially increasing the potency of this attack.

9.  IANA Considerations

9.1.  QUIC Version Registry

   This document request that IANA add the following entry to the QUIC
   version registry:

   Value: TBD

   Status: permanent

   Specification: This document

   Change Controller: IETF

   Contact: QUIC WG

9.2.  QUIC Transport Parameter Registry

   This document requests that IANA add the following entries to the
   QUIC Transport Parameters Registry:

              +=======+=====================+===============+
              | Value |    Parameter Name   | Specification |
              +=======+=====================+===============+
              |  TBD  |   Version Aliasing  | This Document |
              +-------+---------------------+---------------+
              |  TBD  | aliasing_parameters | This Document |
              +-------+---------------------+---------------+

                                  Table 1

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 21]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

9.3.  QUIC Transport Error Codes Registry

   This document requests that IANA add the following entry to the QUIC
   Transport Error Codes registry:

   Value: TBD (provisional: 0x4942)

   Code: INVALID_BAD_SALT

10.  References

10.1.  Normative References

   [I-D.ietf-quic-version-negotiation]
              Schinazi, D. and E. Rescorla, "Compatible Version
              Negotiation for QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-04, 26 May 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
              version-negotiation-04>.

   [RFC9000]  Iyengar, J., Ed. and M. Thomson, Ed., "QUIC: A UDP-Based
              Multiplexed and Secure Transport", RFC 9000,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC9000, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9000>.

   [RFC9001]  Thomson, M., Ed. and S. Turner, Ed., "Using TLS to Secure
              QUIC", RFC 9001, DOI 10.17487/RFC9001, May 2021,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc9001>.

10.2.  Informative References

   [ECHO]     Rescorla, E., Oku, K., Sullivan, N., and C. A. Wood, "TLS
              Encrypted Client Hello", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
              draft-ietf-tls-esni-13, 12 August 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
              esni-13>.

   [QUIC-PI]  Duke, M. and D. Schinazi, "Protected QUIC Initial
              Packets", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-duke-
              quic-protected-initial-02, 13 May 2021,
              <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-duke-quic-
              protected-initial-02>.

   [RFC2119]  Bradner, S., "Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate
              Requirement Levels", BCP 14, RFC 2119,
              DOI 10.17487/RFC2119, March 1997,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc2119>.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 22]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   [RFC8446]  Rescorla, E., "The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol
              Version 1.3", RFC 8446, DOI 10.17487/RFC8446, August 2018,
              <https://www.rfc-editor.org/rfc/rfc8446>.

Appendix A.  Acknowledgments

   Marten Seemann was the original creator of the version aliasing
   approach.

Appendix B.  Change Log

      *RFC Editor's Note:* Please remove this section prior to
      publication of a final version of this document.

B.1.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-05

   *  Revised security considerations

   *  Discussed multiple SNIs behind one load balancer

   *  Removed VN from the fallback mechanism

B.2.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-04

   *  Relationship with Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) and QUIC Protected
      Initials

   *  Corrected statement about version negotiation

B.3.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-03

   *  Discussed request forgery attacks

B.4.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-02

   *  Specified 0RTT status of the transport parameter

B.5.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-01

   *  Fixed all references to "seed" where I meant "salt."

   *  Added the Packet Length Offset, which eliminates Retry Injection
      Attacks

B.6.  since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-00

   *  Added "Initial Token Extensions" to increase salt entropy and make
      salt polling attacks impractical.

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 23]
Internet-Draft            QUIC Version Aliasing             October 2021

   *  Allowed servers to store a mapping of version number and ITE to
      salt instead.

   *  Made standard version encoding mandatory.  This dramatically
      simplifies the new Retry logic and changes the security model.

   *  Added references to Version Negotiation Transport Parameters.

   *  Extensive readability edit.

Author's Address

   Martin Duke
   F5 Networks, Inc.

   Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com

Duke                      Expires 28 April 2022                [Page 24]