Re: [tor-dev] Proposal: Load-balancing hidden services by splitting introduction from rendezvous

[George Kadianakis <desnacked@xxxxxxxxxx>]

Tom van der Woerdt <info@xxxxxxx> writes:

> Op 04/10/15 om 06:46 schreef Tim Wilson-Brown - teor:
>>
>>> On 3 Oct 2015, at 13:34, Tom van der Woerdt <info@xxxxxxx
>>> <mailto:info@xxxxxxx>> wrote:
>>> ...
>>> 3. Compatibility and security
>>>
>>> The implementation of these methods should, ideally, not change
>>> anything in the network, and all control changes are opt-in, so this
>>> proposal is fully backwards compatible.
>>>
>>> Controllers handling this data must be careful to not leak rendezvous
>>> data to untrusted parties, as it could be used to intercept and
>>> manipulate hidden services traffic.
>>
>> After thinking through this, I wonder if the rendezvous data should
>> contain the decrypted cell, rather than the introduction point key and
>> the encrypted cell. That way, if an INTRODUCE event is exposed, only the
>> one rendezvous referred to by the event is vulnerable. (Exposure of the
>> introduction point key means that all introductions from that point are
>> vulnerable until it is rotated, however, there are other layers of
>> encryption protecting the INTRODUCE2 cells [but we shouldnât rely on
>> these, because we want defence-in-depth].)
>>
>> This is also slightly more efficient, as we are transmitting less data
>> in the INTRODUCE event.
>>
>> The drawback of this change is that decryption places slightly more load
>> on the tor instance that receives the INTRODUCE2 cell.
>
> I don't have a particular opinion on which to pick. The proposal leaves this
> decision up to the implementation for exactly that reason.
>
> There are several things to consider that I can think of:
>  * If the crypto is done on the rendezvous side, HSes could potentially scale
> better and be more resistant to DoSes;
>  * With up to 60 introduction points (= processes) made possible by
> OnionBalance, the perf difference may not matter any time soon, and 224 should
> make HSes perform better anyway;
>  * If the crypto is done on the introduction side, DH replays could be detected
> better, which may be good against DoSes;
>  * The controller is considered trusted, and connections between the controllers
> needed for this proposal can be encrypted;
>  * The overhead of constantly adding the same key into the events can largely be
> negated by using a fast compression algorithm such as Snappy -- although I don't
> think that these introduce events will ever become a bottleneck.
>
> Tom
>
> PS: So far this thread has been between Tim and myself... Does anyone else have
> an opinion? ;-)
>

Hello,

I really like this proposal!

I don't have a strong opinion on whether the decryption should happen on the
master or on the slaves (need better terminology here).

Some thoughts:

==== Security =====

With regards to security, both proposals seem almost the same thing.

That is if decryption happens on the slaves as originally proposed, and the
attacker is MITMing the master <-> slaves control channel and is able to snatch
the introduction key, then yes she can decrypt all future encrypted introductions
from that IP.

On the alternative design where decryption happens on the master, the adversary
who MITMs the control channel can just read the introductions trivially since
they are already decrypted.

It seems to me that in both cases the adversary wins equally if she is able to
MITM the control channel, which seems to be what needs to be protected here if
we even care about these attacks.

Finally, what's the deal with the replay caches here? Can the replay check be
done on the master if we do the "decrypt at slaves" design? IIRC the replaycache
stores the decrypted data, so probably not. Is this a big problem? The proposal
does not seem to be mentioning it. We probably don't want to do replay
protection on the slaves, since that might leak the number of slaves we have.

==== Performance ====

Now, with regards to performance, it indeed seems slightly faster to decrypt on
the slaves.  However as you said, with onionbalance enabled, the operator can
have multiple master nodes, which should make this not that big of a deal.

==== Simplicity ====

In general, the "decryption at slaves" design requires you to pass encrypted
blobs around. I think this is suboptimal for backwards/future compatibility
especially without a version field.

If we end up going with this design, I'd prefer if the blob is specified a bit
more. Maybe like Nick suggested here: https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/17254#comment:8

==== Usefuleness ====

As I've mentioned before, if we end up going with the "decryption at master"
design, we can also use this proposal to implement the "rendezvous approver"
functionality of #16059, which would be quite useful under DoS scenarios.

This could look like this:


IP_1 \                                          /-- rend_slave_1
      \                                        /--- rend_slave_2
IP_2 ---> HS master -> rendezvous approver -> /---- rend_slave_3
      /                                       \---- rend_slave_4
IP_3 /                                         \--- rend_slave_5
                                                \-- rend_slave_6

The "rendezvous approver" can also be implemented with the "decryption at slave"
design, but the approver will need to be attached to every rendezvous slave.

====

In any case I like this proposal regardless of which design decision we choose
in the end.

If I were to chose right now, I'd probably pick the "decrypt at master" design
decision, since it seems to be slightly better for security (replay cache), and
also a bit simpler (no reason to pass any encrypted blobs anymore), as well as
allowing the "rendezvous approver" functionality.

Thanks for the proposal!

_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev