A Quic(k) Security Overview: A Literature Research on Implemented Security Recommendations (2306.17568v1)
Abstract: Built on top of UDP, the relatively new QUIC protocol serves as the baseline for modern web protocol stacks. Equipped with a rich feature set, the protocol is defined by a 151 pages strong IETF standard complemented by several additional documents. Enabling fast updates and feature iteration, most QUIC implementations are implemented as user space libraries leading to a large and fragmented ecosystem. This work addresses the research question, "if a complex standard with a large number of different implementations leads to an insecure ecosystem?". The relevant RFC documents were studied and "Security Consideration" items describing conceptional problems were extracted. During the research, 13 popular production ready QUIC implementations were compared by evaluating 10 security considerations from RFC9000. While related studies mostly focused on the functional part of QUIC, this study confirms that available QUIC implementations are not yet mature enough from a security point of view.
- 1980. User Datagram Protocol. RFC 768. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC0768
- Security Analysis of the Micro Transport Protocol with a Misbehaving Receiver. In 2012 International Conference on Cyber-Enabled Distributed Computing and Knowledge Discovery. 143–150. https://doi.org/10.1109/CyberC.2012.31
- Richard J Aldrich and Athina Karatzogianni. 2020. Postdigital war beneath the sea? The Stack’s underwater cable insecurity. Digital War 1, 1 (2020), 29–35. https://doi.org/10.1057/s42984-020-00014-x
- Mike Bishop. 2022. HTTP/3. RFC 9114. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9114
- Detecting Fingerprinted Data in TLS Traffic. In Proceedings of the 10th ACM Symposium on Information, Computer and Communications Security (Singapore, Republic of Singapore) (ASIA CCS ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 633–638. https://doi.org/10.1145/2714576.2714595
- Scott O. Bradner. 1997. Key words for use in RFCs to Indicate Requirement Levels. RFC 2119. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC2119
- Revisiting QUIC attacks: a comprehensive review on QUIC security and a hands-on study”, journal=”International Journal of Information Security. 22, 2 (01 4 2023), 347–365. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10207-022-00630-6
- Secure Communication Channel Establishment: TLS 1.3 (over TCP Fast Open) versus QUIC. Journal of Cryptology 34, 3 (24 May 2021), 26. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00145-021-09389-w
- Xavier de Carné de Carnavalet and Paul C. van Oorschot. 2023. A Survey and Analysis of TLS Interception Mechanisms and Motivations. ACM Comput. Surv. (1 2023). https://doi.org/10.1145/3580522
- Wesley Eddy. 2022. Transmission Control Protocol (TCP). RFC 9293. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9293
- The Addition of Explicit Congestion Notification (ECN) to IP. RFC 3168. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC3168
- DNS over Dedicated QUIC Connections. RFC 9250. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9250
- Jana Iyengar and Ian Swett. 2021. QUIC Loss Detection and Congestion Control. RFC 9002. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9002
- Jana Iyengar and Martin Thomson. 2021. QUIC: A UDP-Based Multiplexed and Secure Transport. RFC 9000. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9000
- Mirja Kühlewind and Brian Trammell. 2022a. Applicability of the QUIC Transport Protocol. RFC 9308. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9308
- Mirja Kühlewind and Brian Trammell. 2022b. Manageability of the QUIC Transport Protocol. RFC 9312. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9312
- Same Standards, Different Decisions: A Study of QUIC and HTTP/3 Implementation Diversity. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Evolution, Performance, and Interoperability of QUIC (Virtual Event, USA) (EPIQ ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 14–20. https://doi.org/10.1145/3405796.3405828
- Towards QUIC Debuggability. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Evolution, Performance, and Interoperability of QUIC (Heraklion, Greece) (EPIQ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284850.3284851
- Main logging schema for qlog. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-quic-qlog-main-schema-05. Internet Engineering Task Force. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-qlog-main-schema/05/ Work in Progress.
- Observing the Evolution of QUIC Implementations. In Proceedings of the Workshop on the Evolution, Performance, and Interoperability of QUIC (Heraklion, Greece) (EPIQ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 8–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3284850.3284852
- Eric Rescorla. 2018. The Transport Layer Security (TLS) Protocol Version 1.3. RFC 8446. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8446
- Eric Rescorla and Brian Korver. 2003. Guidelines for Writing RFC Text on Security Considerations. RFC 3552. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC3552
- David Schinazi and Eric Rescorla. 2022. Compatible Version Negotiation for QUIC. Internet-Draft draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation-14. Internet Engineering Task Force. https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-quic-version-negotiation/14/ Work in Progress.
- Misbehaving TCP Receivers Can Cause Internet-Wide Congestion Collapse. In Proceedings of the 12th ACM Conference on Computer and Communications Security (Alexandria, VA, USA) (CCS ’05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 383–392. https://doi.org/10.1145/1102120.1102170
- Statista. 2023. Number of internet users worldwide from 2005 to 2022. https://www.statista.com/statistics/273018/number-of-internet-users-worldwide/
- Improving TCP’s Robustness to Blind In-Window Attacks. RFC 5961. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC5961
- Martin Thomson. 2021. Version-Independent Properties of QUIC. RFC 8999. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC8999
- Martin Thomson and Cory Benfield. 2022. HTTP/2. RFC 9113. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9113
- Martin Thomson and Sean Turner. 2021. Using TLS to Secure QUIC. RFC 9001. https://doi.org/10.17487/RFC9001
- Implementation and Performance Evaluation of the QUIC Protocol in Linux Kernel. In Proceedings of the 21st ACM International Conference on Modeling, Analysis and Simulation of Wireless and Mobile Systems (Montreal, QC, Canada) (MSWIM ’18). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 227–234. https://doi.org/10.1145/3242102.3242106