[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
[tor-commits] [torspec/master] Proposal for bridges to redirect traffic through guard nodes
commit 1e20a8fac4d9ede8961c6fc920e73d3f96e2e889
Author: Nick Mathewson <nickm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Sun Oct 16 16:49:42 2011 -0400
Proposal for bridges to redirect traffic through guard nodes
---
proposals/188-bridge-guards.txt | 213 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 files changed, 213 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
diff --git a/proposals/188-bridge-guards.txt b/proposals/188-bridge-guards.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..249d794
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/188-bridge-guards.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,213 @@
+Filename: 188-bridge-guards.txt
+Title: Bridge Guards and other anti-enumeration defenses
+Author: Nick Mathewson
+Created: 14 Oct 2011
+Status: Open
+
+1. Overview
+
+ Bridges are useful against censors only so long as the adversary
+ cannot easily enumerate their addresses. I propose a design to make
+ it harder for an adversary who controls or observes only a few
+ nodes to enumerate a large number of bridges.
+
+ Briefly: bridges should choose guard nodes, and use the Tor
+ protocol's "Loose source routing" feature to re-route all extend
+ requests from clients through an additional layer of guard nodes
+ chosen by the bridge. This way, only a bridge's guard nodes can
+ tell that it is a bridge, and the attacker needs to run many more
+ nodes in order to enumerate a large number of bridges.
+
+ I also discuss other ways to avoid enumeration, recommending some.
+
+ These ideas are due to a discussion at the 2011 Tor Developers'
+ Meeting in Waterloo, Ontario. Practically none of the ideas here
+ are mine; I'm just writing up what I remember.
+
+2. History and Motivation
+
+ Under the current bridge design, an attacker who runs a node can
+ identify bridges by seeing which "clients" make a large number of
+ connections to it, or which "clients" make connections to it in the
+ same way clients do. This has been a known attack since early
+ versions {XXXX check} of the design document; let's try to fix it.
+
+2.1. Related ideas: Guard nodes
+
+ The idea of guard nodes isn't new: since 0.1.1, Tor has used guard
+ nodes (first designed as "Helper" nodes by Wright et al in {XXXX})
+ to make it harder for an adversary who controls a smaller number of
+ nodes to eavesdrop on clients. The rationale was: an adversary who
+ controls or observes only one entry and one exit will have a low
+ probability of correlating any single circuit, but over time, if
+ clients choose a random entry and exit for each circuit, such an
+ adversary will eventually see some circuits from each client with a
+ probability of 1, thereby building a statistical profile of the
+ client's activities. Therefore, let each client choose its entry
+ node only from among a small number of client-selected "guard"
+ nodes: the client is still correlated with the same probability as
+ before, but now the client has a nonzero chance of remaining
+ unprofiled.
+
+2.2. Related idea: Loose source routing
+
+ Since the earliest versions of Onion Routing, the protocol has
+ provided "loose source routing". In strict source routing, the
+ source of a message chooses every hop on the message's path. But
+ in loose source routing, the message traverses the selected nodes,
+ but may also traverse other nodes as well. In other words, the
+ client selects nodes N_a, N_b, and N_c, but the message may in fact
+ traverse any sequence of nodes N_1...N_j, so long as N_1=N_a,
+ N_x=N_b, and N_y=N_c, for 1 < x < y.
+
+ Tor has retained this feature, but has not yet made use of it.
+
+3. Design
+
+ Every bridge currently chooses a set of guard nodes for its
+ circuits. Bridges should also re-route client circuits through
+ these circuits.
+
+ Specifically, when a bridge receives a request from a client to
+ extend a circuit, it should first create a circuit to its guard,
+ and then relay that extend cell through the guard. The bridge
+ should add an additional layer of encryption to outgoing cells on
+ that circuit corresponding to the encryption that the guard will
+ remove, and remove a layer of encryption on incoming cells on that
+ circuit corresponding to the encryption that the guard will add.
+
+3.1. An example
+
+ This example doesn't add anything to the design above, but has some
+ interesting inline notes.
+
+ - Alice has connected to her bridge Bob, and built a circuit
+ through Bob, with the negotiated forward and reverse keys KB_f
+ and KB_r.
+
+ - Alice then wants to extend the circuit to node Charlie. She
+ makes a hybrid-encrypted onionskin, encrypted to Charlie's
+ public key, containing her chosen g^x value. She puts this in
+ an extend cell: "Extend (Charlie's address) (Charlie's OR
+ Port) (Onionskin) (Charlie's ID)". She encrypts this with
+ KB_f and sends it as a RELAY_EARLY cell to Bob.
+
+ - Bob receives the RELAY_EARLY cell, and decrypts it with KB_f.
+ He then sees that it's an extend cell for him.
+
+ So far, this is exactly the same as the current procedure that
+ Alice and Bob would follow. Now we diverge:
+
+ - Instead of connecting to Charlie directly, Bob makes sure that
+ he is connected to his guard, Guillaume. Bob uses a
+ CREATE_FAST cell (or a CREATE cell, but see 4.1 below) to open a
+ circuit to Guillaume. Now Bob and Guillaume share keys KG_f
+ and KG_b.
+
+ - Now Bob encrypts the Extend cell body with KG_f and sends it
+ as a RELAY_EARLY cell to Guillaume.
+
+ - Guillaume receives it, decrypts it with KG_f, and sees:
+ "Extend (Charlie's address) (Charlie's OR Port) (Onionskin)
+ (Charlie's ID)". Guillaume acts accordingly: creating a
+ connection to Charlie if he doesn't have one, ensuring that
+ the ID is as expected, and then sending the onionskin in a
+ create cell on that connection.
+
+ Note that Guillaume is behaving exactly as a regular node
+ would upon receiving an Extend cell.
+
+ - Now the handshake finishes. Charlie receives the onionskin
+ and sends Guillaume "CREATED g^y,KH". Guillaume sends Bob
+ "E(KG_r, EXTENDED g^y KH)". (Charlie and Guillaume are still
+ running as regular Tor nodes do today).
+
+ - With this extend cell, and with all future relay cells
+ received on this circuit, Bob first decrypts the cell with
+ KG_r, then re-encrypts it with KB_r, then passes it to Alice.
+ When Alice receives the cell, it will be just as she would
+ have received if Bob had extended to Charlie directly.
+
+ - With all future outgoing cells that he receives from Alice,
+ Bob first decrypts the cell with KA_f, and if the cell does
+ not have Bob as its destination, Bob encrypts it with KG_f
+ before passing it to Guillaume.
+
+ Note that this design does not require that our stream cipher
+ operations be transitive, even though they are.
+
+ Note also that this design requires no change in behavior from any
+ node other than Bob the bridge.
+
+ Finally, observe that even though the circuit is one hop longer
+ than it would be otherwise, no relay's count of permissible
+ RELAY_EARLY cells falls lower than it otherwise would. This is
+ because the extra hop that Bob adds is done with a CREATE_FAST
+ cell, and so he does not need to send any RELAY_EARLY cells not
+ originated by Alice.
+
+4. Other ideas and alternative designs
+
+ In addition to the design above, there are more ways to try to
+ prevent enumeration.
+
+4.1. Make it harder to tell clients from bridges
+
+ Right now, there are multiple ways for the node after a bridge to
+ distinguish a circuit extended through the bridge from one
+ originating at the bridge. (This lets the node after the bridge
+ tell that a bridge is talking to it.)
+
+ One of the giveaways here is that the first hop in a circuit is
+ created with CREATE_FAST cells, but all subsequent hops are created
+ with CREATE cells. In the above design, it's no longer quite so
+ simple to tell, since all of the circuits that extend through a
+ bridge now reach its guards through CREATE_FAST cells, whether the
+ bridge originated them or not.
+
+ (If we adopt a faster circuit extension algorithm -- for example,
+ Goldberg, Stebila, and Ustaoglu's design instantiated over
+ curve25519 -- we could also solve this issue by eliminating
+ CREATE_FAST/CREATED_FAST entirely, which would also help our
+ security margin a little.)
+
+ The CREATE/CREATE_FAST distinction is not the only way for a
+ bridge's guard to tell bridges from orginary clients, however.
+ Most importantly, a busy bridge will open far more circuits than a
+ client would. More subtly, the timing on response from the client
+ will be higher and more highly variable that it would be with an
+ ordinary client. I don't think we can make bridges behave wholly
+ indistinguishably from clients: that's why we should go with guard
+ nodes for bridges.
+
+4.2. Client-enforced bridge guards
+
+ What if Tor didn't have loose source routing? We could have
+ bridges tell clients what guards to use by advertising those guard
+ in their descriptors, and then refusing to extend circuits to any
+ other nodes. This change would require all clients to upgrade in
+ order to be able to use the newer bridges, and would quite possibly
+ cause a fair amount of pain along the way.
+
+ Fortunately, we don't need to go down this path. So let's not!
+
+4.3. Separate bridge-guards and client-guards
+
+ In the design above, I specify that bridges should use the same
+ guard nodes for extending client circuits as they use for their own
+ circuits. It's not immediately clear whether this is a good idea
+ or not. Having separate sets would seem to make the two kinds of
+ circuits more easily distinguishable (even though we already assume
+ they are distinguishable). Having different sets of guards would
+ also seem like a way to keep the nodes who guard our own traffic
+ from learning that we're a bridge... but another set of nodes will
+ learn that anyway, so it's not clear what we'd gain.
+
+5. Other considerations
+
+ What fraction of our traffic is bridge traffic? Will this alter
+ our circuit selection weights?
+
+ Are the current guard selection/evaluation/replacement mechanisms
+ adequate for bridge guards, or do bridges need to get more
+ sophisticated?
_______________________________________________
tor-commits mailing list
tor-commits@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-commits