QUIC Version Aliasing
draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-09
The information below is for an old version of the document.
| Document | Type |
This is an older version of an Internet-Draft whose latest revision state is "Expired".
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| Author | Martin Duke | ||
| Last updated | 2022-11-06 (Latest revision 2022-04-28) | ||
| Replaces | draft-ietf-quic-version-aliasing | ||
| RFC stream | (None) | ||
| Formats | |||
| Stream | Stream state | (No stream defined) | |
| Consensus boilerplate | Unknown | ||
| RFC Editor Note | (None) | ||
| IESG | IESG state | I-D Exists | |
| Telechat date | (None) | ||
| Responsible AD | (None) | ||
| Send notices to | (None) |
draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-09
QUIC M. Duke
Internet-Draft Google
Intended status: Experimental 6 November 2022
Expires: 10 May 2023
QUIC Version Aliasing
draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-09
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 10 May 2023 [Page 1]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
This Internet-Draft will expire on 10 May 2023.
Copyright Notice
Copyright (c) 2022 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 Revised BSD License text as
described in Section 4.e of the Trust Legal Provisions and are
provided without warranty as described in the Revised BSD License.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1. Terminology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2. Protocol Overview . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.1. Relationship to ECH and QUIC Protected Initials . . . . . 5
3. The version_aliasing Transport Parameter . . . . . . . . . . 6
3.1. Aliased Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2. Standard Version . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3. Server Connection ID . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4. Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.5. Packet Length Offset . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.6. Expiration Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.7. Packet Type Codepoints . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8. Operational Considerations for Multiple-Server
Architectures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8.1. Multiple Servers for One Domain . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.8.2. Multiple Entities With One Load Balancer . . . . . . 11
4. Additional Client Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
5. Fallback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
5.1. Bad Salt Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
5.2. Client Response to Bad Salt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
5.3. version_aliasing_fallback Transport Parameter . . . . . . 16
5.4. Server Response to version_aliasing_fallback Transport
Parameter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
6. Considerations for Retry Packets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7. Security and Privacy Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
7.1. Endpoint Impersonation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.2. First-Connection Privacy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.3. Forcing Downgrade . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
7.4. Initial Packet Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
7.5. Retry Injection . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 2]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
7.6. Increased Linkability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.7. Salt Polling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.8. Server Fingerprinting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
7.9. Increased Processing of Garbage UDP Packets . . . . . . . 21
7.10. Increased Retry Overhead . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
7.11. Request Forgery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8. IANA Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.1. QUIC Version Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
8.2. QUIC Transport Parameter Registry . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
8.3. QUIC Transport Error Codes Registry . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9. References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.1. Normative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
9.2. Informative References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix A. Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Appendix B. Change Log . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
B.1. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-08 . . . . . . . . 24
B.2. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-07 . . . . . . . . 24
B.3. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-05 . . . . . . . . 24
B.4. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-04 . . . . . . . . 24
B.5. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-03 . . . . . . . . 24
B.6. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-02 . . . . . . . . 24
B.7. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-01 . . . . . . . . 24
B.8. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-00 . . . . . . . . 24
Author's Address . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
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.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 3]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
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.
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.
QUIC versions require certain properties to support use as a standard
version. QUIC version 1 ([RFC9000]) and version 2
([I-D.draft-ietf-quic-v2]) both have the necessary properties.
Future QUIC version specifications can specify their suitability for
this purpose.
An "aliased version" is a version with a number generated in
accordance with this document. Except when specified below, it
conforms entirely to the specification of the standard version.
2. Protocol Overview
When they instantiate a connection, servers select an alternate
32-bit version number, and optionally a server connection ID, for the
next connection at random and securely derive several parameters from
those values using a repeatable process. Among those is a "salt"
that can be used to encrypt Initial packets instead of the well-known
salt provided in the specification. Other parameters serve to
"grease" parts of the QUIC public header that are currently
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 4]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
unencrypted. Servers communicate these parameters using a transport
parameter.
If a client next connects to that server within the indicated
expiration time, it uses the provided version number and connection
ID, and encrypt its Initial Packets using a key derived from the
provided salt. It uses the other parameters to grease certain public
header fields. In all other respects, the packet is identical to an
Initial packet from a standard version indicated in the transport
parameter.
When a server receives a long header packet with an aliased version,
it uses the version number and destination connection ID to recover
the parameters, which allows it to extract the header values and
decrypt the packet.
When generating parameters, 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.
All long header packets use the aliased version and apply the
greasing parameters. Short header packets are in every respect
unchanged from the standard version.
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;
* protects all of the TLS Client Hello and Server Hello;
* mitigates Retry injection attacks;
* does not require a mechanism to distribute the public key;
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 5]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
* uses smaller Client Hello messages, which might allow a larger
0RTT packet in the same datagram; and
* relies on computationally cheap symmetric encryption.
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 7.3).
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. Note that since QUIC Protected
Initials have their own scheme for protecting Initial packets, that
version is not suitable for use as a standard version. However,
these connections can be used to deliver the version_aliasing
transport parameter.
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_aliasing Transport Parameter
To enable version aliasing, servers deliver a version_aliasing
transport parameter in any QUIC connection that supports transport
parameters. It has the following format.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 6]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Aliased Version (32) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Standard Version (32) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ +
| Salt (160) |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Packet Length Offset (i) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Expiration Time (i) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
|INI|0RT|HAN|RET| CID length | Connection ID (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
Figure 1: version_aliasing Transport Parameter value
These fields are described in the sections below.
The Packet Length Offset and Expiration Time fields are encoded using
the Variable Length Integer encoding from Section 16 of [RFC9000].
Expiration Time is measured in seconds.
INI, 0RT, HAN, and RET are the codepoints for each long header packet
type. If any two packet types have the same codepoint, the transport
parameter is invalid.
The Connection ID Length (CID Length) is in bytes.
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.
Clients remember the values in this transport parameter for a future
connection. Servers MUST either store the contents of the transport
parameter, or preserve the state to compute the full contents based
on the Aliased Version and Connection ID.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 7]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
A server that receives this transport parameter MUST close the
connection with a TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.
Servers SHOULD provide a new version_aliasing transport parameter
each time a client connects. However, issuing version numbers to a
client SHOULD be rate- limited to mitigate the salt polling
attackSection 7.7 and MAY cease to clients that are consistently
connecting with standard versions.
3.1. Aliased Version
The version MUST appear to be random, although there are certain
values that will not be sent. Specifically, it 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
Negotiationi Packets. Some clients may use these version numbers to
probe for Version Negotiation capability, which would likely result
in a fallback procedure (see Section 5) instead of a Version
Negotiation packet.
Servers MUST NOT use client-controlled information (e.g. the client
IP address) as in input to generate the version number, see
Section 7.7.
Servers MUST NOT advertise these versions in QUIC Version Negotiation
packets.
3.2. Standard Version
Servers also identify the Standard version that the client uses to
specify the wire formats and behaviors of the aliased version. This
version MUST meet the criteria to support version aliasing, and MUST
either be included as a supported version in the client's
version_information transport parameter (see [QUIC-VN]) or be the
standard version of the current connection.
Note that servers MUST NOT accept resumption tickets or NEW_TOKEN
tokens from a certain standard version in a connection using a
different standard version. Therefore, the choice of standard
version might impact the performance of the connection that uses an
aliased version. The standard version that generated tickets and/or
tokens is typically encoded in those tickets or tokens.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 8]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
There are several possible techniques for the server securely
recovering the standard version in use for an aliased connection:
* the server could store a mapping of aliased versions to standard
version;
* the server could encrypt the standard version in use in the
aliased version number and/or connection ID;
* the server only accepts one standard version for aliased versions;
or
* the standard version is included as an input to the parameter
generation algorithm, and the server tries all supported standard
versions and tests each resulting Packet Length Offset for
validity.
3.3. Server Connection ID
Servers SHOULD generate a Connection ID to provide additional entropy
in salt generation. Two clients that receive the same version number
but different connection IDs will not be able to decode each other's
Initial Packets.
The connection ID MUST appear to be random to observers, but it might
encode information to route the packet in the server infrastructure,
or standard version information.
The connection ID MUST NOT be between 1 and 7 bytes long. A zero-
length connection ID signals that the destination connection ID will
not be an input to the server's process, so the client may choose any
destination connection ID compliant with the standard version.
3.4. Salt
The salt is an opaque 20-octet field. It is used to generate Initial
connection keys using the process described in [RFC9001].
Servers MUST either generate a random salt and store a mapping of
aliased version and connection ID to salt, or generate the salt using
a cryptographic method that uses the version number, connection ID,
and server state that is persistent across connections. It MUST NOT
use client controlled information other than the version number and
connection ID; for example, the client's IP address and port.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 9]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
3.5. Packet Length Offset
The Packet Length Offset is a 62-bit unsigned integer. All long
headers have a packet length field; this value is added to all packet
lengths, modulo 2^62, to form the value sent on the wire in all long
headers, sent from either endpoint.
Aside from greasing the packet length field, this parameter provides
a low-cost means for the server to determine if the client and server
share a valid version aliasing context. For example, if the server
loses state after sending a version_aliasing transport parameter, the
derived packet length offset is extremely unlikely to be consistent
with the size of the UDP datagram. Due to possible packet
concatenation, a packet is clearly not decryptable if the packet
length is larger than the size of the UDP datagram payload.
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 7.5 describes the implications if it uses zero without
meeting these conditions.
Similarly, the server MAY use a smaller Packet Length Offset size
(e.g., 30 bits) to reduce the size of the packet length offset in
long headers. A smaller packet length field increases the chance
that the packet length will accidentally be valid, requiring trial
decryption. As the maximum UDP datagram size is 2^16 bytes, a 62-bit
packet length offset means that, at worst, only 1 in every 2^46
packets will be a false positive.
3.6. 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. The expiration
need not be derivable from the aliased version and connection ID; it
is a matter of policy.
Furthermore, the expiration time SHOULD be short enough to frustrate
a salt polling attack (Section 7.7)
Conversely, an extremely short expiration time will often force the
client to use standard QUIC version numbers and salts.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 10]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
The client SHOULD NOT use an aliased version if the time since the
receipt of the transport parameter exceeds the Expiration Time.
Attempting to do so is likely to result in a fallback procedure (see
Section 5). The server need not enforce this restriction; the
Expiration Time is purely advisory.
3.7. Packet Type Codepoints
The server generates the packet type codepoint for each of the four
long header packet types (Initial, 0RTT, Handshake, and Retry). Each
of these codepoints is two bits. All long headers from both
endpoints use these codepoints instead of those provided in the
standard version specification.
A straightforward implementation might take arbitrary bits from a
hash of the version number. The first two bits it reads are the
codepoint for Initial packets. The next pair of bits that is not a
duplicate of the first is the codepoint for 0RTT packets. The next
pair that does not duplicate the first two is the codepoint for
Handshake packets, and the remaining codepoint is the Retry packet.
3.8. Operational Considerations for Multiple-Server Architectures
3.8.1. Multiple Servers for One Domain
If multiple servers serve the same entity behind a load balancer,
they MUST NOT generate version numbers that any of them would
advertise in a Version Negotiation Packet or Transport Parameter.
Such servers will either need a common configuration for generating
parameters from the version number and connection ID, maintain a
commmon database of mappings, or the connection ID itself can be used
to route the Initial packet to the server that generated the
transport parameter. See [QUIC-LB] for an example of the last
approach.
3.8.2. 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 that routes the traffic. This use case makes concealing the
contents of the client Initial especially attractive, as the IP
address reveals less information, but there is no obvious means for
the load balancer to inspect a version aliased packet. There are
several solutions to solve this problem.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 11]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
* The RECOMMENDED solution is to use routable connection IDs, so
that the load balancer can correctly direct the packet without any
knowledge of its version- dependent syntax. See [QUIC-LB] for an
example design.
* 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 connection
ID, 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.
* All entities have a common crytographic context for deriving salts
and Packet Length Offsets from the version number and connection
ID. This isi straightforward but also increases the risk that the
keys will leak to an attacker which could then decode Initial
packets from a point where the packets are observable. This is
therefore NOT RECOMMENDED.
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. Additional Client Requirements
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 7.1. The authenticated server name MAY be a "public
name" distributed as described in [ECHO] rather than the true target
domain.
Clients MUST advertise aliased versions in the chosen version field
of the version_information Transport Parameter (see [QUIC-VN]).
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 12]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
Clients SHOULD NOT use the provided version number and connection ID
in more than one connection. Using the same connection ID in two
connections could confuse the server demultiplexer. If the client IP
has changed, reuse of these parameters can link the client across
connection attempts.
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 7.3).
If the response to an Initial packet is a Bad Salt packet, the client
follows the procedures in Section 5.
5. Fallback
If the server has lost its encryption state, it may not be able to
generate the correct salts from previously provided versions and
connection IDs. The fallback mechanism provides a means of
recovering from this state while protecting against injection of
messages by attackers.
When a server receives a 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.
If applying the packet length offset to the packet length field
results in a length longer than the UDP datagram that contains it,
the packet was not generated with the proper version aliasing
context.
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.
In the extremely unlikely event that the Packet Length Offset
resulted in a legal value but the salt is incorrect, the packet will
fail authentication. Servers MAY also interpret this as a loss of
version aliasing state.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 13]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
When the packet length computation on the first packet in a
connection 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. The server ignores failures in subsequent packets
for that connection.
5.1. 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 10 May 2023 [Page 14]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
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.
5.2. 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 7.2. It MUST include a
version_aliasing_fallback Transport Parameter in the Client Hello.
Once it sends this transport parameter, the client MUST NOT attempt
to connect with that aliased version again.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 15]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
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.
5.3. version_aliasing_fallback Transport Parameter
The client sends this transport parameter in a TLS Client Hello
generated in response to a Bad Salt packet:
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
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| Aliased Version (32) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| CID length | Connection ID (variable) |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ +
| Salt (160) |
+ +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
| |
+ +
| |
+ Bad Salt Integrity Tag (128) +
| |
+ +
| |
+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+
The Aliased Version, Connection ID, and Salt fields are taken from
the connection attempt that triggered this fallback.
The Bad Salt Integrity Tag is taken from the Bad Salt packet that
triggered this fallback. Its purpose is to include the Bad Salt
packet contents in the TLS handshake hash.
5.4. Server Response to version_aliasing_fallback Transport Parameter
A client version_aliasing_fallback transport parameter tells the
server that the client received a Bad Salt packet. The server checks
if using the version and connection ID as inputs results in the same
salt.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 16]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
If the salt does not match, 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.
Note that the client never sends this transport parameter in a
connection that uses an aliased version. A server that receives such
a packet MUST terminate the connection with a
TRANSPORT_PARAMETER_ERROR.
6. 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.
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.
7. 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.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 17]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
7.1. Endpoint Impersonation
An on-path attacker might respond to a standard version Initial
packet 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.
7.2. 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.
7.3. 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 7.2.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 18]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
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 [QUIC-VN] or
abandon the connection attempt. If it subsequently detects a
downgrade detection, or discovers that the server does not support
the same mechanism, it terminates the connection attempt.
7.4. 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.
7.5. 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.
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
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 19]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
* 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.
7.6. Increased Linkability
As each version number and connection ID 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.
7.7. 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 connection IDs 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 connection ID to increase the entropy of the salt,
* rate-limit transport parameters sent to a particular client, and/
or
* 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.
7.8. Server Fingerprinting
The server chooses its own connection ID length. Therefore, the
destination server of a version-aliased packet might become clear
based on the chosen length.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 20]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
7.9. 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.
7.10. 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.
7.11. 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.
8. IANA Considerations
8.1. QUIC Version Registry
This document request that IANA add the following entry to the QUIC
version registry:
Value: TBD
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 21]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
Status: permanent
Specification: This document
Change Controller: IETF
Contact: QUIC WG
8.2. 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 | version_aliasing_fallback | This Document |
+-------+---------------------------+---------------+
Table 1
8.3. 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
9. References
9.1. Normative References
[QUIC-VN] Schinazi, D. and E. Rescorla, "Compatible Version
Negotiation for QUIC", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft,
draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-13, 6 November 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
version-negotiation-13>.
[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>.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 22]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
[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>.
9.2. 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-15, 3 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-tls-
esni-15>.
[I-D.draft-ietf-quic-v2]
Duke, M., "QUIC Version 2", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-quic-v2-07, 6 November 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
v2-07>.
[QUIC-LB] Duke, M., Banks, N., and C. Huitema, "QUIC-LB: Generating
Routable QUIC Connection IDs", Work in Progress, Internet-
Draft, draft-ietf-quic-load-balancers-15, 24 October 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-ietf-quic-
load-balancers-15>.
[QUIC-PI] Duke, M. and D. Schinazi, "Protected QUIC Initial
Packets", Work in Progress, Internet-Draft, draft-duke-
quic-protected-initial-04, 27 April 2022,
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/html/draft-duke-quic-
protected-initial-04>.
[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>.
[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.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 23]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
B.1. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-08
* Replaced Initial Token Extension with Server connection ID
B.2. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-07
* Added the Bad Salt Integrity Tag to the transport parameter
* Greased packet types
* Allowed the server to specify the standard version to connect with
B.3. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-05
* Revised security considerations
* Discussed multiple SNIs behind one load balancer
* Removed VN from the fallback mechanism
B.4. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-04
* Relationship with Encrypted Client Hello (ECH) and QUIC Protected
Initials
* Corrected statement about version negotiation
B.5. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-03
* Discussed request forgery attacks
B.6. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-02
* Specified 0RTT status of the transport parameter
B.7. 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.8. since draft-duke-quic-version-aliasing-00
* Added "Initial Token Extensions" to increase salt entropy and make
salt polling attacks impractical.
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 24]
Internet-Draft QUIC Version Aliasing November 2022
* 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
Google
Email: martin.h.duke@gmail.com
Duke Expires 10 May 2023 [Page 25]