[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tor-bugs] #28651 [Obfuscation/Snowflake]: Prepare all pieces of the snowflake pipeline for a second snowflake bridge



#28651: Prepare all pieces of the snowflake pipeline for a second snowflake bridge
-----------------------------------+------------------------
 Reporter:  arma                   |          Owner:  (none)
     Type:  enhancement            |         Status:  new
 Priority:  Medium                 |      Milestone:
Component:  Obfuscation/Snowflake  |        Version:
 Severity:  Normal                 |     Resolution:
 Keywords:                         |  Actual Points:
Parent ID:                         |         Points:
 Reviewer:                         |        Sponsor:
-----------------------------------+------------------------

Comment (by dcf):

 Replying to [comment:3 teor]:
 > Tor isn't really built to have more than one fingerprint per bridge.

 Yes, I realize that. That is why I said "requiring changes in core tor."
 I'm only brainstorming.

 > Instead, if Tor is configured with multiple bridge lines, it tries to
 connect to all of the bridges, then selects between available bridges at
 random.
 >
 > Here's the current design:
 > * each client bridge line has a broker, bridge, and (maybe?) STUN server
 > * each broker knows its corresponding bridge
 > * each proxy is allocated to a broker/bridge

 If I understand you, this would use multiple bridge lines in torrc, one
 for every valid possibility of bridge/broker. So for example, if there
 were one broker and two bridges with fingerprints `1234...`, `5555...`,
 and `ABCD...`:
 {{{
 Bridge snowflake 0.0.3.0:1 1234...1234 broker=https://broker/
 front=broker.front
 Bridge snowflake 0.0.3.0:2 ABCD...ABCD broker=https://broker/
 front=broker.front
 Bridge snowflake 0.0.3.0:3 5555...5555 broker=https://broker/
 front=broker.front
 }}}

 What is potentially unexpected about this approach is that, in my
 experience, tor does not select just ''one'' of its many bridge lines at
 random; rather it selects several and tries all of the simultaneously. So
 here, the snowflake-client would simultaneously send out three
 registration messages (over domain fronting or something else). I guess is
 isn't too big a problem, but it makes me worry a bit more about
 fingerprinting the registration process—especially if there are two
 brokers with two different domain fronts, connecting to them both at the
 same time could be a tell that is not present in normal traffic.

 Here is a torrc file that demonstrates that tor selects more than one of
 its bridge lines:
 {{{
 Log info stderr
 Log info file tor.log
 SafeLogging 0
 DataDirectory datadir
 ClientTransportPlugin obfs4 exec /usr/bin/obfs4proxy
 UseBridges 1
 Bridge obfs4 85.31.186.26:443 91A6354697E6B02A386312F68D82CF86824D3606
 cert=PBwr+S8JTVZo6MPdHnkTwXJPILWADLqfMGoVvhZClMq/Urndyd42BwX9YFJHZnBB3H0XCw
 iat-mode=0
 Bridge obfs4 216.252.162.21:46089 0DB8799466902192B6C7576D58D4F7F714EC87C1
 cert=XPUwcQPxEXExHfJYX58gZXN7mYpos7VNAHbkgERNFg+FCVNzuYo1Wp+uMscl3aR9hO2DRQ
 iat-mode=0
 }}}

 In the log you will see connections made to both bridges. This is why I
 was trying to think of a design that only requires one bridge line.
 {{{
 Nov 29 10:38:41.000 [info] connection_ap_make_link(): Making internal
 direct tunnel to 85.31.186.26:443 ...
 Nov 29 10:38:41.000 [info] connection_ap_make_link(): Making internal
 direct tunnel to 216.252.162.21:46089 ...
 Nov 29 10:38:41.000 [info] connection_read_proxy_handshake(): Proxy
 Client: connection to 216.252.162.21:46089 successful
 Nov 29 10:38:42.000 [info] connection_read_proxy_handshake(): Proxy
 Client: connection to 85.31.186.26:443 successful
 Nov 29 10:38:42.000 [info] add_an_entry_guard(): Chose
 $0DB8799466902192B6C7576D58D4F7F714EC87C1~noisebridge01 at 216.252.162.21
 as new entry guard.
 Nov 29 10:38:43.000 [info] add_an_entry_guard(): Chose
 $91A6354697E6B02A386312F68D82CF86824D3606~zipfelmuetze at 85.31.186.26 as
 new entry guard.
 }}}

 > This design can be gracefully upgraded to:
 > * a multi-bridge client, by distributing different bridge lines with
 different brokers, bridges, and (at least 2) different STUN servers
 > * a multi-bridge broker, by using a different port on the broker for
 each bridge

 I don't understand you here, "a different port on the broker." We envision
 the client connecting to the broker over some covert channel, like domain
 fronting or DNS, that doesn't allow control of the destination port. Why
 encode the selected bridge in transport-layer metadata anyway? The client
 registration message is basically a blob—already around 1000 bytes because
 of ICE metadata—that can encode k=v pairs, so you can augment it to
 contain the name or fingerprint of the desired bridge.

 > * a multi-broker/bridge proxy, by having the proxy connect to multiple
 brokers, then assign client offers from each broker to the corresponding
 bridge
 >   * alternately, each proxy can choose a single bridge/broker at random

 I get that you're going for redundancy and resilience with multiple
 brokers. It is a good idea to have multiple brokers running, but there may
 not be a need to actually encode knowledge of this fact at the client. The
 difficulty with bridge lines is that each one contains a fingerprint—so a
 client really ''does'' have to store locally a list of every bridge it may
 want to connect to. But with the broker we have additional layers of
 indirection. Current clients are using the broker !https://snowflake-
 broker.bamsoftware.com/, but the string "snowflake-broker.bamsoftware.com"
 doesn't appear anywhere on the client—the actual server the broker is on
 could change its name or IP address without clients needing to know about
 it. For example, if one broker goes down, we can change the CDN
 configuration and point the domain front at a backup one. Or with DNS
 registration, we can change the IP address of the authoritative DNS
 server, or potentially even round-robin across multiple brokers, all on
 the backend. If the system ever gets ''really'' big, then the broker
 doesn't even have to be one thing: it can be a distributed system with
 e.g. a shared database and its own internal redundancy. I feel that these
 are implementation decisions that can achieve resilience without needing
 to be exposed to clients.

--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/28651#comment:4>
Tor Bug Tracker & Wiki <https://trac.torproject.org/>
The Tor Project: anonymity online
_______________________________________________
tor-bugs mailing list
tor-bugs@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-bugs