Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

3x amplification limit for CONNECTION_CLOSE #3864

Merged
merged 1 commit into from Jul 29, 2020

Conversation

martinthomson
Copy link
Member

We weren't very concrete in saying how endpoints generate packets with
CONNECTION_CLOSE, particularly those that throw away keys. We have
a rather vague requirement.

In short, follow the same rules we established for the handshake.
Wording this as an aggregate number allows for stochastic reactions and
larger CONNECTION_CLOSE frames. This way, if you get a 25-byte packet
and respond with a 200-byte packet, you can do that, but you have to
respond to 3 in 8 or fewer in that way.

Note that this limit only applies if the endpoint throws away decryption
keys. Endpoints with keys aren't blind amplifiers.

Closes #3845.

We weren't very concrete in saying how endpoints generate packets with
CONNECTION_CLOSE, particularly those that throw away keys.  We have
a rather vague requirement.

In short, follow the same rules we established for the handshake.
Wording this as an aggregate number allows for stochastic reactions and
larger CONNECTION_CLOSE frames.  This way, if you get a 25-byte packet
and respond with a 200-byte packet, you can do that, but you have to
respond to 3 in 8 or fewer in that way.

Note that this limit only applies if the endpoint throws away decryption
keys.  Endpoints with keys aren't blind amplifiers.

Closes #3845.
@martinthomson martinthomson added design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus. -transport labels Jul 8, 2020
@martinthomson martinthomson merged commit edf2164 into master Jul 29, 2020
@martinthomson martinthomson deleted the close-amplification branch July 29, 2020 13:14
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
-transport design An issue that affects the design of the protocol; resolution requires consensus.
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

What does "MUST reduce" mean?
4 participants