-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 402
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
#2057: Option to disable sending GREASE random transport parameter. #2061
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Conversation
What exactly is the motivation here? It seems like randomized GREASE would increase fingerprinting here, which seems at odds with your goal? Or are you trying to mimic other tools that don't send GREASE? (Context in #2057.) |
The presence of GREASE at specific position is itself may be used to fingerprint connection (client application in my case, not an individual user), so I wanted to have an option to omit it. I supposed that this change (
The randomised GREASE is used by browsers (Chromium, Firefox), so it's value can not be used to fingerprint user. But the positions and the presence of parameters could be used as one of the fingerprinting methods of an application.
Ideally I'd like to have more control over transport parameters handshake including order of parameters, their presence and values. To be honests, I'd like to eventually mimic quic handshake of Apple's I understand that upstream |
Making Quinn harder to fingerprint is great, but I'm not sure if it makes sense for us to invest in the capability to pretend to be a specific other implementation. Esoteric configuration like this can also be difficult for downstream code to use correctly, and don't reduce fingerprinting when unused. Instead, we should work to be difficult to fingerprint by default, without any configuration required. Would it make sense to omit the grease parameter based on random chance instead? |
I agree with the statement. There is no sense in making Quinn mimic other implementations. It supports features that may not be supported by others, and vice versa. Mimicking other/any QUIC implementation is not the purpose of this library, unlike specialized libraries such as uTLS. So, I don't expect, for example, an API to inject something like I consider Quinn a general-purpose, easy-to-use QUIC implementation with a great level of flexibility. I expect a general-purpose library to have the ability to opt in and out of default behaviors when it's doable in a sane way/API. And Quinn already does flexibility really well—features like replacing crypto, injecting custom packet transport, and providing custom congestion controllers all allow customizing Quinn enough to overcome unusual environment issues like running on mobile or specific requirements like crypto should be
That can be an option, I think. The question is, what probability should it have by default? Should the user of the library be allowed to adjust it? Basically, setting it to 0 or 1 would make it work as an on/off switch, while allowing values between 0 and 1 enables even more flexible behavior.
Can't agree more with this. So, let's maybe put this PR on hold for a while before it's finally rejected or decided to be changed to include the GREASE transport parameter probabilistically by default. I've noted in the original issue that I think transport parameters should be randomly permuted by default when sent on the wire to make fingerprinting harder. Please let me know if you would be open to accepting such changes in another PR with random permutation of QUIC transport parameters implemented. |
Yes, permuting the order of transport parameters is absolutely something I've been wanting for a while. I think it's generally understood among implementers to be the preferred strategy, even just for anti-ossification. Thanks for working on it! |
e0e509a
to
55f954b
Compare
As a step toward reducing surface to fingerprint
quinn
connections I propose to introduce option to disable sending GREASE transport parameter.