Re: Terrapin
Sam Hartman <[email protected]> Fri, 29 Dec 2023 16:39:21 +0000
| Newsgroups | gmane.ietf.secsh |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <0100018cb671d083-8036ca65-73ba-4b56-9002-281c699016e5-000000@email.amazonses.com> |
>>>>> "Alexandre" =3D=3D Alexandre Becoulet <[email protected]> wr= ites: Alexandre> Niels M=C3=B6ller wrote: >> One subtlety if resetting sequence number to zero is that it >> risks breaking MSG_UNIMPLEMENTED (since seqno may get ambiguous >> in some cases, e.g., if for some reason there are multiple >> keyexchanges only few packets apart). So please keep this in >> mind. So, I think what you are saying is that if msg_unimplemented is sent under a different key (and thus sequence number space if we reset) than the unimplemented message, then there is ambiguity. I.E. client: some unknown message client: newkeys server: newkeys server: msg_unimplemented But why not just flush the pipeline of any unimplemented messages prior to sending newkeys on the server side? I.E. an msg_unimplemented needs to be sent under the key that the unknown message was sent under?