[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[tor-commits] [torspec/master] Start a new guard-spec.txt as a copy of prop271.
commit 6fddd69ec0671f1b83294c1a4f15d281368aea86
Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue Jan 31 12:46:28 2017 -0500
Start a new guard-spec.txt as a copy of prop271.
Remove the old guard section of path-spec, now that guard-spec is
separate.
---
guard-spec.txt | 818 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
path-spec.txt | 123 +--------
2 files changed, 824 insertions(+), 117 deletions(-)
diff --git a/guard-spec.txt b/guard-spec.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..59c66b8
--- /dev/null
+++ b/guard-spec.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,818 @@
+ Tor Guard Specification
+
+ Isis Lovecruft
+ George Kadianakis
+ Ola Bini
+ Nick Mathewson
+
+1. Introduction and motivation
+
+ Tor uses entry guards to prevent an attacker who controls some
+ fraction of the network from observing a fraction of every user's
+ traffic. If users chose their entries and exits uniformly at
+ random from the list of servers every time they build a circuit,
+ then an adversary who had (k/N) of the network would deanonymize
+ F=(k/N)^2 of all circuits... and after a given user had built C
+ circuits, the attacker would see them at least once with
+ probability 1-(1-F)^C. With large C, the attacker would get a
+ sample of every user's traffic with probability 1.
+
+ To prevent this from happening, Tor clients choose a small number
+ of guard nodes (currently 3). These guard nodes are the only
+ nodes that the client will connect to directly. If they are not
+ compromised, the user's paths are not compromised.
+
+ This proposal outlines Tor's current guard selection algorithm,
+ which tries to meet the following goals:
+
+ - Heuristics and algorithms for determining how and which guards
+ are chosen should be kept as simple and easy to understand as
+ possible.
+
+ - Clients in censored regions or who are behind a fascist
+ firewall who connect to the Tor network should not experience
+ any significant disadvantage in terms of reachability or
+ usability.
+
+ - Tor should make a best attempt at discovering the most
+ appropriate behaviour, with as little user input and
+ configuration as possible.
+
+ - Tor clients should discover usable guards without too much
+ delay.
+
+ - Tor clients should resist (to the extent possible) attacks
+ that try to force them onto compromised guards.
+
+
+2. State instances
+
+ In the algorithm below, we describe a set of persistent and
+ non-persistent state variables. These variables should be
+ treated as an object, of which multiple instances can exist.
+
+ In particular, we specify the use of three particular instances:
+
+ A. UseBridges
+
+ If UseBridges is set, then we replace the {GUARDS} set in
+ [Sec:GUARDS] below with the list of list of configured
+ bridges. We maintain a separate persistent instance of
+ {SAMPLED_GUARDS} and {CONFIRMED_GUARDS} and other derived
+ values for the UseBridges case.
+
+ In this case, we impose no upper limit on the sample size.
+
+ B. EntryNodes / ExcludeNodes / Reachable*Addresses /
+ FascistFirewall / ClientUseIPv4=0
+
+ If one of the above options is set, and UseBridges is not,
+ then we compare the fraction of usable guards in the consensus
+ to the total number of guards in the consensus.
+
+ If this fraction is less than {MEANINGFUL_RESTRICTION_FRAC},
+ we use a separate instance of the state.
+
+ (While Tor is running, we do not change back and forth between
+ the separate instance of the state and the default instance
+ unless the fraction of usable guards is 5% higher than, or 5%
+ lower than, {MEANINGFUL_RESTRICTION_FRAC}. This prevents us
+ from flapping back and forth between instances if we happen to
+ hit {MEANINGFUL_RESTRICTION_FRAC} exactly.
+
+ If this fraction is less than {EXTREME_RESTRICTION_FRAC}, we use a
+ separate instance of the state, and warn the user.
+
+ [TODO: should we have a different instance for each set of heavily
+ restricted options?]
+
+ C. Default
+
+ If neither of the above variant-state instances is used,
+ we use a default instance.
+
+3. Circuit Creation, Entry Guard Selection (1000 foot view)
+
+ A circuit in Tor is a path through the network connecting a client to
+ its destination. At a high-level, a three-hop exit circuit will look
+ like this:
+
+ Client <-> Entry Guard <-> Middle Node <-> Exit Node <-> Destination
+
+ Entry guards are the only nodes which a client will connect to
+ directly, Exit relays are the nodes by which traffic exists the
+ Tor network in order to connect to an external destination.
+
+ 3.1 Path selection
+
+ For any circuit, at least one entry guard and middle node(s) are
+ required. An exit node is required if traffic will exit the Tor
+ network. Depending on its configuration, a relay listed in a
+ consensus could be used for any of these roles. However, this
+ proposal defines how entry guards specifically should be selected and
+ managed, as opposed to middle or exit nodes.
+
+ 3.1.1 Entry guard selection
+
+ At a high level, a relay listed in a consensus will move through the
+ following states in the process from initial selection to eventual
+ usage as an entry guard:
+
+ relays listed in consensus
+ |
+ sampled
+ | |
+ confirmed filtered
+ | | |
+ primary usable_filtered
+
+ Relays listed in the latest consensus can be sampled for guard usage
+ if they have the "Guard" flag. Sampling is random but weighted by
+ bandwidth.
+
+ Once a path is built and a circuit established using this guard, it
+ is marked as confirmed. Until this point, guards are first sampled
+ and then filtered based on information such as our current
+ configuration (see SAMPLED and FILTERED sections) and later marked as
+ usable_filtered if the guard is not primary but can be reached.
+
+ It is always preferable to use a primary guard when building a new
+ circuit in order to reduce guard churn; only on failure to connect to
+ existing primary guards will new guards be used.
+
+ 3.1.2 Middle and exit node selection
+
+ Middle nodes are selected at random from relays listed in the
+ latest consensus, weighted by bandwidth. Exit nodes are chosen
+ similarly but restricted to relays with an exit policy.
+
+ 3.2 Circuit Building
+
+ Once a path is chosen, Tor will use this path to build a new circuit.
+
+ If the circuit is built successfully, it either can be used
+ immediately or wait for a better guard, depending on whether other
+ circuits already exist with higher-priority guards.
+
+ If at any point the circuit fails, the guard is marked as
+ unreachable, the circuit is closed, and waiting circuits are updated.
+
+4. The algorithm.
+
+4.0. The guards listed in the current consensus. [Section:GUARDS]
+
+ By {set:GUARDS} we mean the set of all guards in the current
+ consensus that are usable for all circuits and directory
+ requests. (They must have the flags: Stable, Fast, V2Dir, Guard.)
+
+ **Rationale**
+
+ We require all guards to have the flags that we potentially need
+ from any guard, so that all guards are usable for all circuits.
+
+4.1. The Sampled Guard Set. [Section:SAMPLED]
+
+ We maintain a set, {set:SAMPLED_GUARDS}, that persists across
+ invocations of Tor. It is an unordered subset of the nodes that
+ we have seen listed as a guard in the consensus at some point.
+ For each such guard, we record persistently:
+
+ - {pvar:ADDED_ON_DATE}: The date on which it was added to
+ sampled_guards.
+
+ We base this value on RAND(now, {GUARD_LIFETIME}/10). See
+ Appendix [RANDOM] below.
+
+ - {pvar:ADDED_BY_VERSION}: The version of Tor that added it to
+ sampled_guards.
+
+ - {pvar:IS_LISTED}: Whether it was listed as a usable Guard in
+ the _most recent_ consensus we have seen.
+
+ - {pvar:FIRST_UNLISTED_AT}: If IS_LISTED is false, the publication date
+ of the earliest consensus in which this guard was listed such that we
+ have not seen it listed in any later consensus. Otherwise "None."
+ We randomize this, based on
+ RAND(added_at_time, {REMOVE_UNLISTED_GUARDS_AFTER} / 5)
+
+ For each guard in {SAMPLED_GUARDS}, we also record this data,
+ non-persistently:
+
+ - {tvar:last_tried_connect}: A 'last tried to connect at'
+ time. Default 'never'.
+
+ - {tvar:is_reachable}: an "is reachable" tristate, with
+ possible values { <state:yes>, <state:no>, <state:maybe> }.
+ Default '<maybe>.'
+
+ [Note: "yes" is not strictly necessary, but I'm
+ making it distinct from "maybe" anyway, to make our
+ logic clearer. A guard is "maybe" reachable if it's
+ worth trying. A guard is "yes" reachable if we tried
+ it and succeeded.]
+
+ - {tvar:failing_since}: The first time when we failed to
+ connect to this guard. Defaults to "never". Reset to
+ "never" when we successfully connect to this guard.
+
+ - {tvar:is_pending} A "pending" flag. This indicates that we
+ are trying to build an exploratory circuit through the
+ guard, and we don't know whether it will succeed.
+
+ We require that {SAMPLED_GUARDS} contain at least
+ {MIN_FILTERED_SAMPLE} guards from the consensus (if possible),
+ but not more than {MAX_SAMPLE_THRESHOLD} of the number of guards
+ in the consensus, and not more then {MAX_SAMPLE_SIZE} in total.
+ (But if the maximum would be smaller than {MIN_FILTERED_SAMPLE}, we
+ set the maximum at {MIN_FILTERED_SAMPLE}.)
+
+ To add a new guard to {SAMPLED_GUARDS}, pick an entry at random
+ from ({GUARDS} - {SAMPLED_GUARDS}), weighted by bandwidth.
+
+ We remove an entry from {SAMPLED_GUARDS} if:
+
+ * We have a live consensus, and {IS_LISTED} is false, and
+ {FIRST_UNLISTED_AT} is over {REMOVE_UNLISTED_GUARDS_AFTER}
+ days in the past.
+
+ OR
+
+ * We have a live consensus, and {ADDED_ON_DATE} is over
+ {GUARD_LIFETIME} ago, *and* {CONFIRMED_ON_DATE} is either
+ "never", or over {GUARD_CONFIRMED_MIN_LIFETIME} ago.
+
+ Note that {SAMPLED_GUARDS} does not depend on our configuration.
+ It is possible that we can't actually connect to any of these
+ guards.
+
+ **Rationale**
+
+ The {SAMPLED_GUARDS} set is meant to limit the total number of
+ guards that a client will connect to in a given period. The
+ upper limit on its size prevents us from considering too many
+ guards.
+
+ The first expiration mechanism is there so that our
+ {SAMPLED_GUARDS} list does not accumulate so many dead
+ guards that we cannot add new ones.
+
+ The second expiration mechanism makes us rotate our guards slowly
+ over time.
+
+
+4.2. The Usable Sample [Section:FILTERED]
+
+ We maintain another set, {set:FILTERED_GUARDS}, that does not
+ persist. It is derived from:
+ - {SAMPLED_GUARDS}
+ - our current configuration,
+ - the path bias information.
+
+ A guard is a member of {set:FILTERED_GUARDS} if and only if all
+ of the following are true:
+
+ - It is a member of {SAMPLED_GUARDS}, with {IS_LISTED} set to
+ true.
+ - It is not disabled because of path bias issues.
+ - It is not disabled because of ReachableAddress police,
+ the ClientUseIPv4 setting, the ClientUseIPv6 setting,
+ the FascistFirewall setting, or some other
+ option that prevents using some addresses.
+ - It is not disabled because of ExcludeNodes.
+ - It is a bridge if UseBridges is true; or it is not a
+ bridge if UseBridges is false.
+ - Is included in EntryNodes if EntryNodes is set and
+ UseBridges is not. (But see 2.B above).
+
+ We have an additional subset, {set:USABLE_FILTERED_GUARDS}, which
+ is defined to be the subset of {FILTERED_GUARDS} where
+ {is_reachable} is <yes> or <maybe>.
+
+ We try to maintain a requirement that {USABLE_FILTERED_GUARDS}
+ contain at least {MIN_FILTERED_SAMPLE} elements:
+
+ Whenever we are going to sample from {USABLE_FILTERED_GUARDS},
+ and it contains fewer than {MIN_FILTERED_SAMPLE} elements, we
+ add new elements to {SAMPLED_GUARDS} until one of the following
+ is true:
+
+ * {USABLE_FILTERED_GUARDS} is large enough,
+ OR
+ * {SAMPLED_GUARDS} is at its maximum size.
+
+
+ ** Rationale **
+
+ These filters are applied _after_ sampling: if we applied them
+ before the sampling, then our sample would reflect the set of
+ filtering restrictions that we had in the past.
+
+4.3. The confirmed-guard list. [Section:CONFIRMED]
+
+ [formerly USED_GUARDS]
+
+ We maintain a persistent ordered list, {list:CONFIRMED_GUARDS}.
+ It contains guards that we have used before, in our preference
+ order of using them. It is a subset of {SAMPLED_GUARDS}. For
+ each guard in this list, we store persistently:
+
+ - {pvar:IDENTITY} Its fingerprint
+
+ - {pvar:CONFIRMED_ON_DATE} When we added this guard to
+ {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}.
+
+ Randomized as RAND(now, {GUARD_LIFETIME}/10).
+
+ We add new members to {CONFIRMED_GUARDS} when we mark a circuit
+ built through a guard as "for user traffic."
+
+ Whenever we remove a member from {SAMPLED_GUARDS}, we also remove
+ it from {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}.
+
+ [Note: You can also regard the {CONFIRMED_GUARDS} list as a
+ total ordering defined over a subset of {SAMPLED_GUARDS}.]
+
+ Definition: we call Guard A "higher priority" than another Guard B
+ if, when A and B are both reachable, we would rather use A. We
+ define priority as follows:
+
+ * Every guard in {CONFIRMED_GUARDS} has a higher priority
+ than every guard not in {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}.
+
+ * Among guards in {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}, the one appearing earlier
+ on the {CONFIRMED_GUARDS} list has a higher priority.
+
+ * Among guards that do not appear in {CONFIRMED_GUARDS},
+ {is_pending}==true guards have higher priority.
+
+ * Among those, the guard with earlier {last_tried_connect} time
+ have higher priority.
+
+ * Finally, among guards that do not appear in
+ {CONFIRMED_GUARDS} with {is_pending==false}, all have equal
+ priority.
+
+ ** Rationale **
+
+ We add elements to this ordering when we have actually used them
+ for building a usable circuit. We could mark them at some other
+ time (such as when we attempt to connect to them, or when we
+ actually connect to them), but this approach keeps us from
+ committing to a guard before we actually use it for sensitive
+ traffic.
+
+4.4. The Primary guards [Section:PRIMARY]
+
+ We keep a run-time non-persistent ordered list of
+ {list:PRIMARY_GUARDS}. It is a subset of {FILTERED_GUARDS}. It
+ contains {N_PRIMARY_GUARDS} elements.
+
+ To compute primary guards, take the ordered intersection of
+ {CONFIRMED_GUARDS} and {FILTERED_GUARDS}, and take the first
+ {N_PRIMARY_GUARDS} elements. If there are fewer than
+ {N_PRIMARY_GUARDS} elements, add additional elements to
+ PRIMARY_GUARDS chosen _uniformly_ at random from
+ ({FILTERED_GUARDS} - {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}).
+
+ Once an element has been added to {PRIMARY_GUARDS}, we do not remove it
+ until it is replaced by some element from {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}. Confirmed
+ elements always proceed unconfirmed ones in the {PRIMARY_GUARDS} list.
+
+ Note that {PRIMARY_GUARDS} do not have to be in
+ {USABLE_FILTERED_GUARDS}: they might be unreachable.
+
+ ** Rationale **
+
+ These guards are treated differently from other guards. If one of
+ them is usable, then we use it right away. For other guards
+ {FILTERED_GUARDS}, if it's usable, then before using it we might
+ first double-check whether perhaps one of the primary guards is
+ usable after all.
+
+4.5. Retrying guards. [Section:RETRYING]
+
+ (We run this process as frequently as needed. It can be done once
+ a second, or just-in-time.)
+
+ If a primary sampled guard's {is_reachable} status is <no>, then
+ we decide whether to update its {is_reachable} status to <maybe>
+ based on its {last_tried_connect} time, its {failing_since} time,
+ and the {PRIMARY_GUARDS_RETRY_SCHED} schedule.
+
+ If a non-primary sampled guard's {is_reachable} status is <no>, then
+ we decide whether to update its {is_reachable} status to <maybe>
+ based on its {last_tried_connect} time, its {failing_since} time,
+ and the {GUARDS_RETRY_SCHED} schedule.
+
+ ** Rationale **
+
+ An observation that a guard has been 'unreachable' only lasts for
+ a given amount of time, since we can't infer that it's unreachable
+ now from the fact that it was unreachable a few minutes ago.
+
+4.6. Selecting guards for circuits. [Section:SELECTING]
+
+ Every origin circuit is now in one of these states:
+ <state:usable_on_completion>,
+ <state:usable_if_no_better_guard>,
+ <state:waiting_for_better_guard>, or
+ <state:complete>.
+
+ You may only attach streams to <complete> circuits.
+ (Additionally, you may only send RENDEZVOUS cells, ESTABLISH_INTRO
+ cells, and INTRODUCE cells on <complete> circuits.)
+
+ The per-circuit state machine is:
+
+ New circuits are <usable_on_completion> or
+ <usable_if_no_better_guard>.
+
+ A <usable_on_completion> circuit may become <complete>, or may
+ fail.
+
+ A <usable_if_no_better_guard> circuit may become
+ <usable_on_completion>; may become <waiting_for_better_guard>; or may
+ fail.
+
+ A <waiting_for_better_guard> circuit will become <complete>, or will
+ be closed, or will fail.
+
+ A <complete> circuit remains <complete> until it fails or is
+ closed.
+
+ Each of these transitions is described below.
+
+ We keep, as global transient state:
+
+ * {tvar:last_time_on_internet} -- the last time at which we
+ successfully used a circuit or connected to a guard. At
+ startup we set this to "infinitely far in the past."
+
+ When we want to build a circuit, and we need to pick a guard:
+
+ * If any entry in PRIMARY_GUARDS has {is_reachable} status of
+ <maybe> or <yes>, return the first such guard. The circuit is
+ <usable_on_completion>.
+
+ [Note: We do not use {is_pending} on primary guards, since we
+ are willing to try to build multiple circuits through them
+ before we know for sure whether they work, and since we will
+ not use any non-primary guards until we are sure that the
+ primary guards are all down. (XX is this good?)]
+
+ * Otherwise, if the ordered intersection of {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}
+ and {USABLE_FILTERED_GUARDS} is nonempty, return the first
+ entry in that intersection that has {is_pending} set to
+ false. Set its value of {is_pending} to true. The circuit
+ is now <usable_if_no_better_guard>. (If all entries have
+ {is_pending} true, pick the first one.)
+
+ * Otherwise, if there is no such entry, select a member at
+ random from {USABLE_FILTERED_GUARDS}. Set its {is_pending}
+ field to true. The circuit is <usable_if_no_better_guard>.
+
+ We update the {last_tried_connect} time for the guard to 'now.'
+
+ In some cases (for example, when we need a certain directory feature,
+ or when we need to avoid using a certain exit as a guard), we need to
+ restrict the guards that we use for a single circuit. When this happens, we
+ remember the restrictions that applied when choosing the guard for
+ that circuit, since we will need them later (see [UPDATE_WAITING].).
+
+ ** Rationale **
+
+ We're getting to the core of the algorithm here. Our main goals are to
+ make sure that
+ 1. If it's possible to use a primary guard, we do.
+ 2. We probably use the first primary guard.
+
+ So we only try non-primary guards if we're pretty sure that all
+ the primary guards are down, and we only try a given primary guard
+ if the earlier primary guards seem down.
+
+ When we _do_ try non-primary guards, however, we only build one
+ circuit through each, to give it a chance to succeed or fail. If
+ ever such a circuit succeeds, we don't use it until we're pretty
+ sure that it's the best guard we're getting. (see below).
+
+ [XXX timeout.]
+
+4.7. When a circuit fails. [Section:ON_FAIL]
+
+ When a circuit fails in a way that makes us conclude that a guard
+ is not reachable, we take the following steps:
+
+ * We set the guard's {is_reachable} status to <no>. If it had
+ {is_pending} set to true, we make it non-pending.
+
+ * We close the circuit, of course. (This removes it from
+ consideration by the algorithm in [UPDATE_WAITING].)
+
+ * Update the list of waiting circuits. (See [UPDATE_WAITING]
+ below.)
+
+ [Note: the existing Tor logic will cause us to create more
+ circuits in response to some of these steps; and also see
+ [ON_CONSENSUS].]
+
+ ** Rationale **
+
+ See [SELECTING] above for rationale.
+
+4.8. When a circuit succeeds [Section:ON_SUCCESS]
+
+ When a circuit succeeds in a way that makes us conclude that a
+ guard _was_ reachable, we take these steps:
+
+ * We set its {is_reachable} status to <yes>.
+ * We set its {failing_since} to "never".
+ * If the guard was {is_pending}, we clear the {is_pending} flag.
+ * If the guard was not a member of {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}, we add
+ it to the end of {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}.
+
+ * If this circuit was <usable_on_completion>, this circuit is
+ now <complete>. You may attach streams to this circuit,
+ and use it for hidden services.
+
+ * If this circuit was <usable_if_no_better_guard>, it is now
+ <waiting_for retry>. You may not yet attach streams to it.
+ Then check whether the {last_time_on_internet} is more than
+ {INTERNET_LIKELY_DOWN_INTERVAL} seconds ago:
+
+ * If it is, then mark all {PRIMARY_GUARDS} as "maybe"
+ reachable.
+
+ * If it is not, update the list of waiting circuits. (See
+ [UPDATE_WAITING] below)
+
+ [Note: the existing Tor logic will cause us to create more
+ circuits in response to some of these steps; and see
+ [ON_CONSENSUS].]
+
+ ** Rationale **
+
+ See [SELECTING] above for rationale.
+
+4.9. Updating the list of waiting circuits [Section:UPDATE_WAITING]
+
+ We run this procedure whenever it's possible that a
+ <waiting_for_better_guard> circuit might be ready to be called
+ <complete>.
+
+ * If any circuit C1 is <waiting_for_better_guard>, AND:
+ * All primary guards have reachable status of <no>.
+ * There is no circuit C2 that "blocks" C1.
+ Then, upgrade C1 to <complete>.
+
+ Definition: In the algorithm above, C2 "blocks" C1 if:
+ * C2 obeys all the restrictions that C1 had to obey, AND
+ * C2 has higher priority than C1, AND
+ * Either C2 is <complete>, or C2 is <waiting_for_better_guard>,
+ or C2 has been <usable_if_no_better_guard> for no more than
+ {NONPRIMARY_GUARD_CONNECT_TIMEOUT} seconds.
+
+ We run this procedure periodically:
+
+ * If any circuit stays is <waiting_for_better_guard>
+ for more than {NONPRIMARY_GUARD_IDLE_TIMEOUT} seconds,
+ time it out.
+
+ **Rationale**
+
+ If we open a connection to a guard, we might want to use it
+ immediately (if we're sure that it's the best we can do), or we
+ might want to wait a little while to see if some other circuit
+ which we like better will finish.
+
+
+ When we mark a circuit <complete>, we don't close the
+ lower-priority circuits immediately: we might decide to use
+ them after all if the <complete> circuit goes down before
+ {NONPRIMARY_GUARD_IDLE_TIMEOUT} seconds.
+
+4.10. Whenever we get a new consensus. [Section:ON_CONSENSUS]
+
+ We update {GUARDS}.
+
+ For every guard in {SAMPLED_GUARDS}, we update {IS_LISTED} and
+ {FIRST_UNLISTED_AT}.
+
+ [**] We remove entries from {SAMPLED_GUARDS} if appropriate,
+ according to the sampled-guards expiration rules. If they were
+ in {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}, we also remove them from
+ {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}.
+
+ We recompute {FILTERED_GUARDS}, and everything that derives from
+ it, including {USABLE_FILTERED_GUARDS}, and {PRIMARY_GUARDS}.
+
+ (Whenever one of the configuration options that affects the
+ filter is updated, we repeat the process above, starting at the
+ [**] line.)
+
+4.11. Deciding whether to generate a new circuit.
+ [Section:NEW_CIRCUIT_NEEDED]
+
+ In current Tor, we generate a new circuit when we don't have
+ enough circuits either built or in-progress to handle a given
+ stream, or an expected stream.
+
+ For the purpose of this rule, we say that <waiting_for_better_guard>
+ circuits are neither built nor in-progress; that <complete>
+ circuits are built; and that the other states are in-progress.
+
+A. Appendices
+
+A.1. Parameters with suggested values. [Section:PARAM_VALS]
+
+ (All suggested values chosen arbitrarily)
+
+ {param:MAX_SAMPLE_THRESHOLD} -- 20%
+
+ {param:MAX_SAMPLE_SIZE} -- 60
+
+ {param:GUARD_LIFETIME} -- 120 days
+
+ {param:REMOVE_UNLISTED_GUARDS_AFTER} -- 20 days
+ [previously ENTRY_GUARD_REMOVE_AFTER]
+
+ {param:MIN_FILTERED_SAMPLE} -- 20
+
+ {param:N_PRIMARY_GUARDS} -- 3
+
+ {param:PRIMARY_GUARDS_RETRY_SCHED}
+ -- every 30 minutes for the first 6 hours.
+ -- every 2 hours for the next 3.75 days.
+ -- every 4 hours for the next 3 days.
+ -- every 9 hours thereafter.
+
+ {param:GUARDS_RETRY_SCHED} -- 1 hour
+ -- every hour for the first 6 hours.
+ -- every 4 hours for the next 3.75 days.
+ -- every 18 hours for the next 3 days.
+ -- every 36 hours thereafter.
+
+ {param:INTERNET_LIKELY_DOWN_INTERVAL} -- 10 minutes
+
+ {param:NONPRIMARY_GUARD_CONNECT_TIMEOUT} -- 15 seconds
+
+ {param:NONPRIMARY_GUARD_IDLE_TIMEOUT} -- 10 minutes
+
+ {param:MEANINGFUL_RESTRICTION_FRAC} -- .2
+
+ {param:EXTREME_RESTRICTION_FRAC} -- .01
+
+ {param:GUARD_CONFIRMED_MIN_LIFETIME} -- 60 days
+
+A.2. Random values [Section:RANDOM]
+
+ Frequently, we want to randomize the expiration time of something
+ so that it's not easy for an observer to match it to its start
+ time. We do this by randomizing its start date a little, so that
+ we only need to remember a fixed expiration interval.
+
+ By RAND(now, INTERVAL) we mean a time between now and INTERVAL in
+ the past, chosen uniformly at random.
+
+
+A.3. Why not a sliding scale of primaryness? [Section:CVP]
+
+ At one meeting, I floated the idea of having "primaryness" be a
+ continuous variable rather than a boolean.
+
+ I'm no longer sure this is a great idea, but I'll try to outline
+ how it might work.
+
+ To begin with: being "primary" gives it a few different traits:
+
+ 1) We retry primary guards more frequently. [Section:RETRYING]
+
+ 2) We don't even _try_ building circuits through
+ lower-priority guards until we're pretty sure that the
+ higher-priority primary guards are down. (With non-primary
+ guards, on the other hand, we launch exploratory circuits
+ which we plan not to use if higher-priority guards
+ succeed.) [Section:SELECTING]
+
+ 3) We retry them all one more time if a circuit succeeds after
+ the net has been down for a while. [Section:ON_SUCCESS]
+
+ We could make each of the above traits continuous:
+
+ 1) We could make the interval at which a guard is retried
+ depend continuously on its position in CONFIRMED_GUARDS.
+
+ 2) We could change the number of guards we test in parallel
+ based on their position in CONFIRMED_GUARDS.
+
+ 3) We could change the rule for how long the higher-priority
+ guards need to have been down before we call a
+ <usable_if_no_better_guard> circuit <complete> based on a
+ possible network-down condition. For example, we could
+ retry the first guard if we tried it more than 10 seconds
+ ago, the second if we tried it more than 20 seconds ago,
+ etc.
+
+ I am pretty sure, however, that if these are worth doing, they
+ need more analysis! Here's why:
+
+ * They all have the potential to leak more information about a
+ guard's exact position on the list. Is that safe? Is there
+ any way to exploit that? I don't think we know.
+
+ * They all seem like changes which it would be relatively
+ simple to make to the code after we implement the simpler
+ version of the algorithm described above.
+
+A.3. Controller changes
+
+ We will add to control-spec.txt a new possible circuit state, GUARD_WAIT,
+ that can be given as part of circuit events and GETINFO responses about
+ circuits. A circuit is in the GUARD_WAIT state when it is fully built,
+ but we will not use it because a circuit with a better guard might
+ become built too.
+
+A.4. Persistent state format
+
+ The persistent state format doesn't need to be part of this
+ proposal, since different implementations can do it
+ differently. Nonetheless, here's the one Tor uses:
+
+ The "state" file contains one Guard entry for each sampled guard
+ in each instance of the guard state (see section 2). The value
+ of this Guard entry is a set of space-separated K=V entries,
+ where K contains any nonspace character except =, and V contains
+ any nonspace characters.
+
+ Implementations must retain any unrecognized K=V entries for a
+ sampled guard when the regenerate the state file.
+
+ The order of K=V entries is not allowed to matter.
+
+ Recognized fields (values of K) are:
+
+ "in" -- the name of the guard state instance that this
+ sampled guard is in. If a sampled guard is in two guard
+ states instances, it appears twice, with a different "in"
+ field each time. Required.
+
+ "rsa_id" -- the RSA id digest for this guard, encoded in
+ hex. Required.
+
+ "bridge_addr" -- If the guard is a bridge, its configured
+ address and OR port. Optional.
+
+ "nickname" -- the guard's nickname, if any. Optional.
+
+ "sampled_on" -- the date when the guard was sampled. Required.
+
+ "sampled_by" -- the Tor version that sampled this guard.
+ Optional.
+
+ "unlisted_since" -- the date since which the guard has been
+ unlisted. Optional.
+
+ "listed" -- 0 if the guard is not listed ; 1 if it is. Required.
+
+ "confirmed_on" -- date when the guard was
+ confirmed. Optional.
+
+ "confirmed_idx" -- position of the guard in the confirmed
+ list. Optional.
+
+ "pb_use_attempts", "pb_use_successes", "pb_circ_attempts",
+ "pb_circ_successes", "pb_successful_circuits_closed",
+ "pb_collapsed_circuits", "pb_unusable_circuits",
+ "pb_timeouts" -- state for the circuit path bias algorithm,
+ given in decimal fractions. Optional.
+
+ All dates here are given as a (spaceless) ISO8601 combined date
+ and time in UTC (e.g., 2016-11-29T19:39:31).
+
+
+TODO. Still non-addressed issues [Section:TODO]
+
+ Simulate to answer: Will this work in a dystopic world?
+
+ Simulate actual behavior.
+
+ For all lifetimes: instead of storing the "this began at" time,
+ store the "remove this at" time, slightly randomized.
+
+ Clarify that when you get a <complete> circuit, you might need to
+ relaunch circuits through that same guard immediately, if they
+ are circuits that have to be independent.
+
+
+ Fix all items marked XX or TODO.
+
+ "Directory guards" -- do they matter?
+
+ Suggestion: require that all guards support downloads via BEGINDIR.
+ We don't need to worry about directory guards for relays, since we
+ aren't trying to prevent relay enumeration.
+
+ IP version preferenes via ClientPreferIPv6ORPort
+
+ Suggestion: Treat it as a preference when adding to
+ {CONFIRMED_GUARDS}, but not otherwise.
+
diff --git a/path-spec.txt b/path-spec.txt
index 47dae3b..ceb6c77 100644
--- a/path-spec.txt
+++ b/path-spec.txt
@@ -554,123 +554,12 @@ of their choices.
5. Guard nodes
- We use Guard nodes (also called "helper nodes" in the literature) to
- prevent certain profiling attacks. Here's the risk: if we choose entry and
- exit nodes at random, and an attacker controls C out of N relays
- (ignoring bandwidth), then the
- attacker will control the entry and exit node of any given circuit with
- probability (C/N)^2. But as we make many different circuits over time,
- then the probability that the attacker will see a sample of about (C/N)^2
- of our traffic goes to 1. Since statistical sampling works, the attacker
- can be sure of learning a profile of our behavior.
-
- If, on the other hand, we picked an entry node and held it fixed, we would
- have probability C/N of choosing a bad entry and being profiled, and
- probability (N-C)/N of choosing a good entry and not being profiled.
-
- When guard nodes are enabled, Tor maintains an ordered list of entry nodes
- as our chosen guards, and stores this list persistently to disk. If a Guard
- node becomes unusable, rather than replacing it, Tor adds new guards to the
- end of the list. When choosing the first hop of a circuit, Tor
- chooses at
- random from among the first NumEntryGuards (default 3) usable guards on the
- list. If there are not at least 2 usable guards on the list, Tor adds
- routers until there are, or until there are no more usable routers to add.
-
- A guard is unusable if any of the following hold:
- - it is not marked as a Guard by the networkstatuses,
- - it is not marked Valid (and the user hasn't set AllowInvalid entry)
- - it is not marked Running
- - Tor couldn't reach it the last time it tried to connect
-
- A guard is unusable for a particular circuit if any of the rules for path
- selection in 2.2 are not met. In particular, if the circuit is "fast"
- and the guard is not Fast, or if the circuit is "stable" and the guard is
- not Stable, or if the guard has already been chosen as the exit node in
- that circuit, Tor can't use it as a guard node for that circuit.
-
- If the guard is excluded because of its status in the networkstatuses for
- over 30 days, Tor removes it from the list entirely, preserving order.
-
- If Tor fails to connect to an otherwise usable guard, it retries
- periodically: every hour for six hours, every 4 hours for 3 days, every
- 18 hours for a week, and every 36 hours thereafter. Additionally, Tor
- retries unreachable guards the first time it adds a new guard to the list,
- since it is possible that the old guards were only marked as unreachable
- because the network was unreachable or down.
-
- Tor does not add a guard persistently to the list until the first time we
- have connected to it successfully.
-
-5.1. Guard selection algorithm
-
- If configured to use entry guards, and the circuit's purpose is not marked
- for testing, then a random entry guard from the persisted state (as
- mentioned earlier in §5) will be chosen (provided there is already some
- persisted state storing previously chosen guard nodes).
-
- Otherwise, if any the above conditions are not satisfied, then a new entry
- guard node will be chosen for that circuit. The algorithm is as follows:
-
- - EXCLUDED_NODES is a list of nodes which, for some reason, are not
- acceptable for use as an entry guard.
-
- 1. If an exit node has been chosen for the circuit:
-
- 1.a. Then that exit is added to EXCLUDED_NODES (and thus will not be
- used as the entry guard).
-
- 2. If running behind a fascist firewall (e.g. outgoing connections are
- only permitted to ports 80 and/or 443):
-
- 2.a. For all known routers in the network (as given in the
- networkstatus document), a router is added to the list of
- EXCLUDED_NODES iff it does not advertise the ability to be reached
- via the ports allowed through the fascist firewall.
-
- 3. Add any entry guards currently in volatile storage, as well as all
- nodes within their families, to EXCLUDED_NODES.
-
- 4. Determine which of the following flags should apply to the selection of
- an entry guard:
-
- * CRN_NEED_UPTIME: the router can only be chosen as an entry guard
- iff has been available for at least some minimum uptime.
- * CRN_NEED_CAPACITY: potentially suitable routers are weighted by
- their advertised bandwidth capacity.
- * CRN_ALLOW_INVALID: also consider using routers which have been
- marked as invalid.
- * CRN_NEED_GUARD: only consider routers which have the Guard flag.
- * CRN_NEED_DESC: only consider routers for which we have enough
- information to be used to build a circuit.
-
- Additionally, if configured to allow nodes marked as invalid AND to
- specifically allow entry guards which have been marked as invalid, then
- the CRN_ALLOW_INVALID flag will be set. Lastly, the CRN_NEED_GUARD and
- CRN_NEED_DESC flags are always applied, regardless of configuration.
-
- 5. If configured to exclude routers which allow single-hop circuits, then
- the list of known routers is traversed, and all routers which permit
- single-hop circuits are added to EXCLUDED_NODES.
-
- 6. If we are an OR, add ourselves (and our family) to EXCLUDED_NODES.
-
- 7. The list of potential routers is weighted according to the bandwidth
- weights from the consensus (cf. §5.1.1), and then a random selection is
- chosen with respect to those weights.
-
- 7.a. If we've made a choice now, the algorithm finishes.
- 7.b. Otherwise, continue to step #8.
-
- 8. We couldn't find a suitable guard, so now we try much harder by
- discarding the CRN_NEED_UPTIME, CRN_NEED_CAPACITY, and CRN_NEED_GUARD
- selection flags. This effectively means we'll use nearly any router,
- except for ones already in EXCLUDED_LIST.
-
- [XXX Does this mean we even include BadExits and other misbehaving
- nodes? This sounds bad. â??isis]
-
-5.1.1. How consensus bandwidth weights factor into entry guard selection
+ We use Guard nodes (also called "helper nodes" in the research
+ literature) to prevent certain profiling attacks. For an overview of
+ our Guard selection algorithm -- which has grown rather complex -- see
+ guard-spec.txt.
+
+5.1. How consensus bandwidth weights factor into entry guard selection
When weighting a list of routers for choosing an entry guard, the following
consensus parameters (from the "bandwidth-weights" line) apply:
_______________________________________________
tor-commits mailing list
tor-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-commits