Greetings! Around 4 months ago, nickm published a proposal draft for OnionBalance to support onion services v3. Due to #29583, it turns out that we can afterall take the easy approach which is basically how OnionBalance is working today for v2 but transposed to v3. See the ticket for the reasons why for now we'll proceed this way. However, we all agreed that #29583 is a "must fix at some point" meaning that OnionBalance v3 will then become much more complicated. In order to not forget about it, I'm reviving nickm's proposal as prop306 so we have the draft in torspec.git. See attachement for the proposal. Cheers! David -- vjZrE+FHHEPpllrbcUukx7LtWFzk066L23yoggvnmso=
Filename: 306-onionbalance-v3.txt
Title: Onion Balance Support for Onion Service v3
Author: Nick Mathewson
Created: 03-April-2019
Status: Draft
0. Draft Notes
2019-07-25:
At this point in time, the cross-certification is not implemented
correctly in >= tor-0.3.2.1-alpha. See https://trac.torproject.org/29583
for more details.
This proposal assumes that this bug is fixed.
1. Introduction
The OnionBalance tool allows several independent Tor instances to host an
onion service, while clients can access that onion service without having
to take its distributed status into account. OnionBalance works by having
each instance run a separate onion service. Then, a management server
periodically downloads the descriptors from those onion services, and
generates a new descriptor containing the introduction points from each
instance's onion service.
OnionBalance is used by several high-profile onion services, including
Facebook and The Tor Project.
Unfortunately, because of the cross-certification features in v3 onion
services, OnionBalance no longer works for them. To a certain extent, this
breakage is because of a security improvement: It's probably a good thing
that random third parties can no longer grab a onion service's introduction
points and claim that they are introduction points for a different service.
But nonetheless, a lack of a working OnionBalance remains an obstacle for
v3 onion service migration.
This proposal describes extensions to v3 onion service design to
accommodate OnionBalance.
2. Background and Solution
If an OnionBalance management server wants to provide an aggregate
descriptor for a v3 onion service, it faces several obstacles that it
didn't have in v2.
When the management server goes to construct an aggregated descriptor, it
will have a mismatch on the "auth-key", "enc-key-cert", and
"legacy-key-cert" fields: these fields are supposed to certify the onion
service's current descriptor-signing key, but each of these keys will be
generated independently by each instance. Because they won't match each
other, there is no possible key that the aggregated descriptor could use
for its descriptor signing key.
In this design, we require that each instance should know in advance about
a descriptor-signing public key that the aggregate descriptor will use for
each time period. (I'll explain how they can do this later, in section 3
below.) They don't have to know the corresponding private key.
When generating their own onion service descriptors for a given time
period, the instances generate these additional fields to be used for the
aggregate descriptor:
"meta-auth-key"
"meta-enc-key-cert"
"meta-legacy-key-cert"
These fields correspond to "auth-key", "enc-key-cert", and
"legacy-key-cert" respectively, but differ in one regard: the
descriptor-signing public key that they certify is _not_ the instance's own
descriptor-signing key, but rather the aggregate public key for the time
period.
Ordinary clients ignore these new fields.
When the management server creates the aggregate descriptor, it checks that
the signing key for each of these "meta" fields matches the signing key for
its corresponding non-"meta" field, and that they certify the correct
descriptor-signing key-- and then uses these fields in place of their
corresponding non-"meta" variants.
2.1. A quick note on synchronization
In the design above, and in the section below, I frequently refer to "the
current time period". By this, I mean the time period for which the
descriptor is encoded, not the time period in which it is generated.
Instances and management servers should generate descriptors for the two
closest time periods, as they do today: no additional synchronization
should needed here.
3. How to distribute descriptor-signing keys
The design requires that every instance of the onion service knows about
the public descriptor-signing key that will be used for the aggregate onion
service. Here I'll discuss how this can be achieved.
3.1. If the instances are trusted.
If the management server trusts each of the instances, it can distribute a
shared secret to each one of them, and use this shared secret to derive
each time period's private key.
For example, if the shared secret is SK, then the private descriptor-
signing key for each time period could be derived as:
H("meta-descriptor-signing-key-deriv" |
onion_service_identity
INT_8(period_num) |
INT_8(period_length) |
SK )
(Remember that in the terminology of rend-spec-v3, INT_8() denotes a 64-bit
integer, see section 0.2 in rend-spec-v3.txt.)
If shared secret is ever compromised, then an attacker can impersonate the
onion service until the shared secret is changed, and can correlate all
past descriptors for the onion service.
3.2. If the instances are not trusted: Option One
If the management server does not trust the instances with
descriptor-signing public keys, another option for it is to simply
distribute a load of public keys in advance, and use them according to a
schedule.
In this design, the management server would pre-generate the
"descriptor-signing-key-cert" fields for a long time in advance, and
distribute them to the instances offline. Each one would be
associated with its corresponding time period.
If these certificates were revealed to an attacker, the attacker
could correlate descriptors for the onion service with one another,
but could not impersonate the service.
3.3. If the instances are not trusted: Option Two
Another option for the trust model of 3.2 above is to use the same
key-blinding method as used for v3 onion services. The management server
would hold a private descriptor-signing key, and use it to derive a
different private descriptor-signing key for each time period. The instance
servers would hold the corresponding public key, and use it to derive a
different public descriptor-signing key for each time period.
(For security, the key-blinding function in this case should use a
different nonce than used in the)
This design would allow the instances to only be configured once, which
would be simpler than 3.2 above-- but at a cost. The management server's
use of a long-term private descriptor-signing key would require it to keep
that key online. (It could keep the derived private descriptor-signing keys
online, but the parent key could be derived from them.)
Here, if the instance's knowledge were revealed to an attack, the attacker
could correlate descriptors for the onion service with one another, but
could not impersonate the service.
4. Some features of this proposal
We retain the property that each instance service remains accessible as a
working onion service. However, anyone who can access it can identify it as
an instance of an OnionBalance service, and correlate its descriptor to the
aggregate descriptor.
Instances could use client authorization to ensure that only the management
server can decrypt their introduction points. However, because of the
key-blinding features of v3 onion services, nobody who doesn't know the
onion addresses for the instances can access them anyway: It would be
sufficient to keep these addresses secret.
Although anybody who successfully accesses an instance can correlate its
descriptor to the meta-descriptor, this only works for two descriptors
within a single time period: You can't match an instance descriptor from
one time period to a meta-descriptor from another.
A. Acknowledgments
Thanks to the network team for helping me clarify my ideas here, explore
options, and better understand some of the implementations and challenges
in this problem space.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ tor-dev mailing list tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev