[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: [tor-bugs] #31011 [Core Tor/Tor]: Make the bridge authority reject private PT addresses when DirAllowPrivateAddresses is 0
#31011: Make the bridge authority reject private PT addresses when
DirAllowPrivateAddresses is 0
-----------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Reporter: teor | Owner: (none)
Type: defect | Status: new
Priority: Medium | Milestone: Tor:
| unspecified
Component: Core Tor/Tor | Version:
Severity: Normal | Resolution:
Keywords: anti-censorship-roadmap-september | Actual Points:
Parent ID: #31009 | Points: 1
Reviewer: | Sponsor:
| Sponsor28-can
-----------------------------------------------+---------------------------
Changes (by teor):
* cc: phw (added)
Comment:
I think we need to know how many bridges are affected by this issue,
before we can make this decision.
Replying to [comment:7 cjb]:
> Replying to [comment:1 arma]:
> > Another option here is to leave the bridge authority alone, and teach
bridgedb that if there's an internal address in the extrainfo descriptor,
it should swap it out in favor of the public address in the descriptor.
> >
> > Then once the #31009 fix is sufficiently deployed, it shouldn't matter
anymore.
> >
> > (That way we could make use of the current obfs4 bridges even if they
haven't upgraded yet.)
>
> I think I could volunteer to work on this ticket, but it looks like we
still need to decide what to do. Options:
There's a tradeoff here, so maybe we should ask the anti-censorship team
what they'd like.
> 1) as in the summary, bridgeauth just refuses descriptors with internal
addresses
Rejecting descriptors means we have fewer bridges, until those bridges
upgrade tor versions.
But those bridges are more likely to have correct addresses.
(Changing to an address the operator didn't provide means that port
forwarding might not be set up.)
> 2) arma's suggestion, bridgedb transforms internal addresses to external
This option has the opposite tradeoff: more bridges, fast to deploy,
potentially wrong data.
> 3) Could we also consider having bridgeauth itself, rather than bridgedb
downstream, perform that transformation? Or perhaps there's a reason why
that's not a good idea?
I'm not sure if we can do this, because extra-info descriptors are signed
by the bridge.
--
Ticket URL: <https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/31011#comment:8>
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