<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:m="http://schemas.microsoft.com/office/2004/12/omml" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40"><head><meta http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=utf-8"><meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 15 (filtered medium)"><style><!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:"Cambria Math";
panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;}
@font-face
{font-family:Calibri;
panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0in;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{mso-style-priority:99;
color:purple;
text-decoration:underline;}
p.msonormal0, li.msonormal0, div.msonormal0
{mso-style-name:msonormal;
mso-margin-top-alt:auto;
margin-right:0in;
mso-margin-bottom-alt:auto;
margin-left:0in;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;}
span.EmailStyle18
{mso-style-type:personal;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:#1F497D;}
span.EmailStyle19
{mso-style-type:personal-compose;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;
color:windowtext;}
.MsoChpDefault
{mso-style-type:export-only;
font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;}
@page WordSection1
{size:8.5in 11.0in;
margin:1.0in 1.0in 1.0in 1.0in;}
div.WordSection1
{page:WordSection1;}
--></style><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]--></head><body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=purple><div class=WordSection1><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Hi Watson,<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Sorry for the belated response, I’m travelling.<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>I’ll start with the editorial comments: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>The proposed scheme is somewhat different that the paper it is quoting. After talking to Nick and his team we had to make some changes to address practical considerations that were not taken into account in the original paper. In essence, the paper deals with a security feature (RUP security) in a single layer. Proposal 295 deals with multi-layer encryption, i.e. an iterative application of the idea presented in the paper. Some more changes were made to make it compatible with sending messages in both the forward and backward directions, and with the fact that the two directions are not symmetric. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>“</span>Maybe some more words to explain the layering would help.”<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'> – have you consulted the figure Atul prepared (</span><a href="https://people.torproject.org/~nickm/prop295/)">https://people.torproject.org/~nickm/prop295/)</a><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>? I’d be happy to hear where it is that you feel that more text is required. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>“</span>stuff is xored with zero<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>“ if you are referring to Section 3.1.1, this is done by design. It is used to show explicitly that a string of zeros must be XORed, since this string of zeros has an important role in the decryption process (this is the redundancy used for authentication).<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>“</span>the concatenation language is not used consistently<span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>” – our part of the proposal uses || to denote concatenation for readability. In Section 2.4 we copied text from tor-spec.txt verbatim and they use a single | to denote concatenation. This is noted in Section 2.2 and should be adapted before the proposal is merged into tor-spec.txt. I could not find other inconsistencies. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>As for the substantive part: <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Being able to compute a message which doesn’t change the digest means that a node can replace the ciphertext they send out with another one. This is called non-repudiation and the question whether Tor should even offer this property is outside of the scope of this proposal. Effectively, a message that was changed in this way will decrypt in the next hop into a random plaintext which will in turn result in a random digest. In other words, by finding a second preimage (sort of) you will still change (randomize) the next digest. No matter where this happens on the circuit, it will be caught in the authentication part when the last nonce would not decrypt into the all-zero string (hence the explicit XOR of zero). Therefore, it is functionally equivalent to simply changing the message and is true for both the forward and backward directions. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Another scenario we’ve considered is collusion (e.g., between the first and the last nodes). We were trying to think whether this can be used for a side-channel. For example, the first node replaces the ciphertext with another one and the message doesn’t authenticated when it gets to the last node. Then, the first node sends the original message to the last node which now has both the second message (in decrypted form) and the original message (in encrypted form they cannot open since it has to be passed via an intermediate node). Is it still possible to compare the two messages? We couldn’t find a way because the two nodes have a different worldview. But it is the nature of attacks that they are overlooked by the original designers, so more eyes are very much welcomed. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>We do note that we didn’t consider this scenario (being able to replace the ciphertext without changing the digest in the same hop) when writing our security proofs (in the original paper), but we don’t see a way it violates them either. The paper itself isn’t meant to say much about Tor and therefore, neither do the security proofs. The proposal itself is more general than the than the paper. Bottom line – we can’t see a problem in this but if anyone reading this an idea how to use it, even if incomplete and which needs to be worked out, please let us know either here or privately. <o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'>Tomer<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;color:#1F497D'><o:p> </o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'>From:</span></b><span style='font-size:11.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif'> tor-dev <tor-dev-bounces@lists.torproject.org> <b>On Behalf Of </b>Watson Ladd<br><b>Sent:</b> Monday, March 18, 2019 6:05 PM<br><b>To:</b> tor-dev@lists.torproject.org<br><b>Subject:</b> Re: [tor-dev] New revision: Proposal 295: Using ADL for relay cryptography (solving the crypto-tagging attack)<o:p></o:p></span></p><p class=MsoNormal><o:p> </o:p></p><div><p class=MsoNormal>Some comments: some purely editorial, some substantive.<br>Editorial: stuff is xored with zero, the concatenation language is not used consistently. I found it difficult to understand the proposed scheme and check equivalence to the paper. Maybe some more words to explain the layering would help.<br><br>Substantive: Does it matter that it is possible to compute a message that doesnt change the digest if you know the key?<o:p></o:p></p></div><p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><br>On Fri, Mar 1, 2019 at 9:05 AM Nick Mathewson <<a href="mailto:nickm@torproject.org" target="_blank">nickm@torproject.org</a>> wrote:<br>><br>> Hi!<br>><br>> I'm sending a new version of proposal 295 from Tomer Ashur, Orr<br>> Dunkelman, and Atul Luykx. It's an updated version of their design<br>> for an improved relay cell encryption scheme, to prevent tagging<br>> attacks.<br>><br>> This proposal is checked into the torspec repository. I'm also<br>> linking to a diagram for this scheme (and its latex source) from Atul<br>> Luykx: <a href="https://people.torproject.org/~nickm/prop295/" target="_blank">https://people.torproject.org/~nickm/prop295/</a><br>><br>> Finally, I have a draft python reference implementation for an older<br>> version of this proposal. I hope to be updating it soon and sending<br>> out a link next week.<br>><br>> cheers! -- Nick<br>><br>><br>><br>> Filename: 295-relay-crypto-with-adl.txt<br>> Title: Using ADL for relay cryptography (solving the crypto-tagging attack)<br>> Author: Tomer Ashur, Orr Dunkelman, Atul Luykx<br>> Created: 22 Feb 2018<br>> Last-Modified: 1 March 2019<br>> Status: Open<br>><br>><br>> 0. Context<br>><br>> Although Crypto Tagging Attacks were identified already in the<br>> original Tor design, it was not before the rise of the<br>> Procyonidae in 2012 that their severity was fully realized. In<br>> Proposal 202 (Two improved relay encryption protocols for Tor<br>> cells) Nick Mathewson discussed two approaches to stymie tagging<br>> attacks and generally improve Tor's cryptography. In Proposal 261<br>> (AEZ for relay cryptography) Mathewson puts forward a concrete<br>> approach which uses the tweakable wide-block cipher AEZ.<br>><br>> This proposal suggests an alternative approach to Proposal 261<br>> using the notion of Release (of) Unverified Plaintext (RUP)<br>> security. It describes an improved algorithm for circuit<br>> encryption based on CTR-mode which is already used in Tor, and an<br>> additional component for hashing.<br>><br>> Incidentally, and similar to Proposal 261, this proposal employs<br>> the ENCODE-then-ENCIPHER approach thus it improves Tor's E2E<br>> integrity by using (sufficient) redundancy.<br>><br>> For more information about the scheme and a security proof for<br>> its RUP-security see<br>><br>> Tomer Ashur, Orr Dunkelman, Atul Luykx: Boosting<br>> Authenticated Encryption Robustness with Minimal<br>> Modifications. CRYPTO (3) 2017: 3-33<br>><br>> available online at <a href="https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/239" target="_blank">https://eprint.iacr.org/2017/239</a> .<br>><br>> For authentication between the OP and the edge node we use<br>> the PIV scheme: <a href="https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/835" target="_blank">https://eprint.iacr.org/2013/835</a><br>><br>> 2. Preliminaries<br>><br>> 2.1 Motivation<br>><br>> For motivation, see proposal 202.<br>><br>> 2.2. Notation<br>><br>> Symbol Meaning<br>> ------ -------<br>> M Plaintext<br>> C_I Ciphertext<br>> CTR Counter Mode<br>> N_I A de/encryption nonce (to be used in CTR-mode)<br>> T_I A tweak (to be used to de/encrypt the nonce)<br>> T'_I A running digest<br>> ^ XOR<br>> || Concatenation<br>> (This is more readable than a single | but must be adapted<br>> before integrating the proposal into tor-spec.txt)<br>><br>> 2.3. Security parameters<br>><br>> HASH_LEN -- The length of the hash function's output, in bytes.<br>><br>> PAYLOAD_LEN -- The longest allowable cell payload, in bytes. (509)<br>><br>> DIG_KEY_LEN -- The key length used to digest messages (e.g.,<br>> using GHASH). Since GHASH is only defined for 128-bit keys, we<br>> recommend DIG_KEY_LEN = 128.<br>><br>> ENC_KEY_LEN -- The key length used for encryption (e.g., AES). We<br>> recommend ENC_KEY_LEN = 128.<br>><br>> 2.4. Key derivation (replaces Section 5.2.2)<br>><br>> For newer KDF needs, Tor uses the key derivation function HKDF<br>> from RFC5869, instantiated with SHA256. The generated key<br>> material is:<br>><br>> K = K_1 | K_2 | K_3 | ...<br>><br>> where, if H(x,t) denotes HMAC_SHA256 with value x and key t,<br>> and m_expand denotes an arbitrarily chosen value,<br>> and INT8(i) is an octet with the value "i", then<br>> K_1 = H(m_expand | INT8(1) , KEY_SEED )<br>> and K_(i+1) = H(K_i | m_expand | INT8(i+1) , KEY_SEED ),<br>> in RFC5869's vocabulary, this is HKDF-SHA256 with info ==<br>> m_expand, salt == t_key, and IKM == secret_input.<br>><br>> When used in the ntor handshake a string of key material is<br>> generated and is used in the following way:<br>><br>> Length Purpose Notation<br>> ------ ------- --------<br>> HASH_LEN forward digest IV DF *<br>> HASH_LEN backward digest IV DB *<br>> ENC_KEY_LEN encryption key Kf<br>> ENC_KEY_LEN decryption key Kb<br>> DIG_KEY_LEN forward digest key Khf<br>> DIG_KEY_LEN backward digest key Khb<br>> ENC_KEY_LEN forward tweak key Ktf<br>> ENC_KEY_LEN backward tweak key Ktb<br>> DIGEST_LEN nonce to use in the *<br>> hidden service protocol<br>><br>> * I am not sure that we need these any longer.<br>><br>> Excess bytes from K are discarded.<br>><br>> 2.6. Ciphers<br>><br>> For hashing(*) we use GHASH with a DIG_KEY_LEN-bit key. We write<br>> this as Digest(K,M) where K is the key and M the message to be<br>> hashed.<br>><br>> We use AES with an ENC_KEY_LEN-bit key. For AES encryption<br>> (resp., decryption) we write E(K,X) (resp., D(K,X)) where K is an<br>> ENC_KEY_LEN-bit key and X the block to be encrypted (resp.,<br>> decrypted).<br>><br>> For a stream cipher, unless otherwise specified, we use<br>> ENC_KEY_LEN-bit AES in counter mode, with a nonce that is<br>> generated as explained below. We write this as Encrypt(K,N,X)<br>> (resp., Decrypt(K,N,X)) where K is the key, N the nonce, and X<br>> the message to be encrypted (resp., decrypted).<br>><br>> (*) The terms hash and digest are used interchangeably.<br>><br>> 3. Routing relay cells<br>><br>> 3.1. Forward Direction<br>><br>> The forward direction is the direction that CREATE/CREATE2 cells<br>> are sent.<br>><br>> 3.1.1. Routing from the Origin<br>><br>> Let n denote the integer representing the destination node. For<br>> I = 1...n+1, T'_{I} is initialized to the 128-bit string consisting<br>> entirely of '0's. When an OP sends a relay cell, they prepare the<br>> cell as follows:<br>><br>> The OP prepares the authentication part of the message:<br>><br>> C_{n+1} = M<br>> T_{n+1} = Digest(Khf_n,T'_{n+1}||C_{n+1})<br>> N_{n+1} = T_{n+1} ^ E(Ktf_n,T_{n+1} ^ 0)<br>> T'_{n+1} = T_{n+1}<br>><br>> Then, the OP prepares the multi-layered encryption:<br>><br>> For I=n...1:<br>> C_I = Encrypt(Kf_I,N_{I+1},C_{I+1})<br>> T_I = Digest(Khf_I,T'_I||C_I)<br>> N_I = T_I ^ E(Ktf_I,T_I ^ N_{I+1})<br>> T'_I = T_I<br>><br>> The OP sends C_1 and N_1 to node 1.<br>><br>> 3.1.2. Relaying Forward at Onion Routers<br>><br>> When a forward relay cell is received by OR I, it decrypts the<br>> payload with the stream cipher, as follows:<br>><br>> 'Forward' relay cell:<br>><br>> T_I = Digest(Khf_I,T'_I||C_I)<br>> N_{I+1} = T_I ^ D(Ktf_I,T_I ^ N_I)<br>> C_{I+1} = Decrypt(Kf_I,N_{I+1},C_I)<br>> T'_I = T_I<br>><br>> The OR then decides whether it recognizes the relay cell as<br>> described below. If the OR recognizes the cell, it processes the<br>> contents of the relay cell. Otherwise, it passes C_{I+1}||N_{I+1}<br>> along the circuit if the circuit continues.<br>><br>> For more information, see section 4 below.<br>><br>> 3.2. Backward Direction<br>><br>> The backward direction is the opposite direction from<br>> CREATE/CREATE2 cells.<br>><br>> 3.2.1. Relaying Backward at Onion Routers<br>><br>> When a backward relay cell is received by OR I, it encrypts the<br>> payload with the stream cipher, as follows:<br>><br>> 'Backward' relay cell:<br>><br>> T_I = Digest(Khb_I,T'_I||C_{I+1})<br>> N_I = T_I ^ E(Ktb_I,T_I ^ N_{I+1})<br>> C_I = Encrypt(Kb_I,N_I,C_{I+1})<br>> T'_I = T_I<br>><br>> with C_{n+1} = M and N_{n+1}=0. Once encrypted, the node passes<br>> C_I and N_I along the circuit towards the OP.<br>><br>> 3.2.2. Routing to the Origin<br>><br>> When a relay cell arrives at an OP, the OP decrypts the payload<br>> with the stream cipher as follows:<br>><br>> OP receives relay cell from node 1:<br>><br>> For I=1...n, where n is the end node on the circuit:<br>> C_{I+1} = Decrypt(Kb_I,N_I,C_I)<br>> T_I = Digest(Khb_I,T'_I||C_{I+1})<br>> N_{I+1} = T_I ^ D(Ktb_I,T_I ^ N_I)<br>> T'_I = T_I<br>><br>> If the payload is recognized (see Section 4.1),<br>> then:<br>><br>> The sending node is I. Stop, process the<br>> payload and authenticate.<br>><br>> 4. Application connections and stream management<br>><br>> 4.1. Relay cells<br>><br>> Within a circuit, the OP and the end node use the contents of<br>> RELAY packets to tunnel end-to-end commands and TCP connections<br>> ("Streams") across circuits. End-to-end commands can be initiated<br>> by either edge; streams are initiated by the OP.<br>><br>> The payload of each unencrypted RELAY cell consists of:<br>><br>> Relay command [1 byte]<br>> 'Recognized' [2 bytes]<br>> StreamID [2 bytes]<br>> Length [2 bytes]<br>> Data [PAYLOAD_LEN-23 bytes]<br>><br>> The 'recognized' field is used as a simple indication that the<br>> cell is still encrypted. It is an optimization to avoid<br>> calculating expensive digests for every cell. When sending cells,<br>> the unencrypted 'recognized' MUST be set to zero.<br>><br>> When receiving and decrypting cells the 'recognized' will always<br>> be zero if we're the endpoint that the cell is destined for. For<br>> cells that we should relay, the 'recognized' field will usually<br>> be nonzero, but will accidentally be zero with P=2^-16.<br>><br>> If the cell is recognized, the node moves to verifying the<br>> authenticity of the message as follows(*):<br>><br>> forward direction (executed by the end node):<br>><br>> T_{n+1} = Digest(Khf_n,T'_{n+1}||C_{n+1})<br>> Tag = T_{n+1} ^ D(Ktf_n,T_{n+1} ^ N_{n+1})<br>> T'_{n+1} = T_{n+1}<br>><br>> The message is authenticated (i.e., M = C_{n+1}) if<br>> and only if Tag = 0<br>><br>> backward direction (executed by the OP):<br>><br>> The message is authenticated (i.e., C_{n+1} = M) if<br>> and only if N_{n+1} = 0<br>><br>><br>> The old Digest field is removed since sufficient information for<br>> authentication is now included in the nonce part of the payload.<br>><br>> (*) we should consider dropping the 'recognized' field<br>> altogether and always try to authenticate. Note that this is<br>> an optimization question and the crypto works just as well<br>> either way.<br>><br>> The 'Length' field of a relay cell contains the number of bytes<br>> in the relay payload which contain real payload data. The<br>> remainder of the payload is padding bytes.<br>><br>> 4.2. Appending the encrypted nonce and dealing with version-homogenic<br>> and version-heterogenic circuits<br>><br>> When a cell is prepared to be routed from the origin (see Section<br>> 3.1.1) the encrypted nonce N is appended to the encrypted cell<br>> (occupying the last 16 bytes of the cell). If the cell is<br>> prepared to be sent to a node supporting the new protocol, S is<br>> combined with other sources to generate the layer's<br>> nonce. Otherwise, if the node only supports the old protocol, n<br>> is still appended to the encrypted cell (so that following nodes<br>> can still recover their nonce), but a synchronized nonce (as per<br>> the old protocol) is used in CTR-mode.<br>><br>> When a cell is sent along the circuit in the 'backward'<br>> direction, nodes supporting the new protocol always assume that<br>> the last 16 bytes of the input are the nonce used by the previous<br>> node, which they process as per Section 3.2.1. If the previous<br>> node also supports the new protocol, these cells are indeed the<br>> nonce. If the previous node only supports the old protocol, these<br>> bytes are either encrypted padding bytes or encrypted data.<br>><br>> 5. Security<br>><br>> 5.1. Resistance to crypto-tagging attacks<br>><br>> A crypto-tagging attack involves a circuit with two colluding<br>> nodes and at least one honest node between them. The attack works<br>> when one node makes a change to the cell (tagging) in a way that<br>> can be undone by the other colluding party. In between, the<br>> tagged cell is processed by honest nodes which do not detect the<br>> change. The attack is possible due to the malleability property<br>> of CTR-mode: a change to a ciphertext bit effects only the<br>> respective plaintext bit in a predicatble way. This proposal<br>> frustrates the crypto-tagging attack by linking the nonce to the<br>> encrypted message such that any change to the ciphertext results<br>> in a random nonce and hence, random plaintext.<br>><br>> Let us consider the following 3-hop scenario: the entry and end<br>> nodes are malicious and colluding and the middle node is honest.<br>><br>> 5.1.1. forward direction<br>><br>> Suppose that node I tags the ciphertext part of the message<br>> (C'_{I+1} != C_{I+1}) then forwards it to the next node (I+1). As<br>> per Section 3.1.2. Node I+1 digests C'_{I+1} to generate T_{I+1}<br>> and N_{I+2}. Since C'_{I+2} is different than it should be, so<br>> are the resulting T_{I+1} and N_{I+2}. Hence, decrypting C'_{I+2}<br>> using these values results in a random string for C_{I+2}. Since<br>> C_{I+2} is now just a random string, it is decrypted into a<br>> random string and cannot be 'recognized' nor<br>> authenticated. Furthermore, since C'_{I+1} is different than what<br>> it should be, T'_{I+1} (i.e., the running digest of the middle<br>> node) is now out of sync with that of the OP, which means that<br>> all future cells sent through this node will decrypt into garbage<br>> (random strings).<br>><br>> Likewise, suppose that instead of tagging the ciphertext, Node I<br>> node tags the encrypted nonce N'_{I+1} != N_{I+1}. Now, when Node<br>> I+1 digests the payload the tweak T_{I+1} is find, but using it<br>> to decrypt N'_{I+1} again results in a random nonce for<br>> N_{I+2}. This random nonce is used to decrypt C_{I+1} into a<br>> random C'_{I+2} which is not recognized by the end node. Since<br>> C_{I+2} is now a random string, the running digest of the end<br>> node is now out of sync, which prevents the end node from<br>> decrypting further cells.<br>><br>> 5.1.2. Backward direction<br>><br>> In the backward direction the tagging is done by Node I+2<br>> untagging by the Node I. Suppose first that Node I+2 tags the<br>> ciphertext C_{I+2} and sends it to Node I+1. As per Section<br>> 3.2.1, Node I+1 first digests C_{I+2} and uses the resulting<br>> T_{I+1} to generate a nonce N_{I+1}. From this it is clear that<br>> any change introduced by Node I+2 influences the entire payload<br>> and cannot be removed by Node I.<br>><br>> Unlike in Section 5.1.1., the cell is blindly delivered by Node I<br>> to the OP which decrypts it. However, since the payload leaving<br>> the end node was modified, the message cannot be authenticated by<br>> the OP which can be trusted to tear down the circuit.<br>><br>> Suppose now that tagging is done by Node I+2 to the nonce part of<br>> the payload, i.e., N_{I+2}. Since this value is encrypted by Node<br>> I+1 to generate its own nonce N_{I+1}, again, a random nonce is<br>> used which affects the entire keystream of CTR-mode. The cell<br>> again cannot be authenticated by the OP and the circuit is torn<br>> down.<br>><br>> We note that the end node can modify the plain message before<br>> ever encrypting it and this cannot be discovered by the Tor<br>> protocol. This vulnerability is outside the scope of this<br>> proposal and users should always use TLS to make sure that their<br>> application data is encrypted before it enters the Tor network.<br>><br>> 5.2. End-to-end authentication<br>><br>> Similar to the old protocol, this proposal only offers end-to-end<br>> authentication rather than per-hop authentication. However,<br>> unlike the old protocol, the ADL-construction is non-malleable<br>> and hence, once a non-authentic message was processed by an<br>> honest node supporting the new protocol, it is effectively<br>> destroyed for all nodes further down the circuit. This is because<br>> the nonce used to de/encrypt all messages is linked to (a digest<br>> of) the payload data.<br>><br>> As a result, while honest nodes cannot detect non-authentic<br>> messages, such nodes still destroy the message thus invalidating<br>> its authentication tag when it is checked by edge nodes. As a<br>> result, security against crypto-tagging attacks is ensured as<br>> long as an honest node supporting the new protocol processes the<br>> message between two dishonest ones.<br>><br>> 5.3 The Running Digest<br>><br>> Unlike the old protocol, the running digest is now computed as<br>> the output of a GHASH call instead of a hash function call<br>> (SHA256). Since GHASH does not provide the same type of security<br>> guarantees as SHA256, it is worth discussing why security is not<br>> lost from computing the running digest differently.<br>><br>> The running digets is used to ensure that if the same payload is<br>> encrypted twice, then the resulting ciphertext does not remain<br>> the same. Therefore, all that is needed is that the digest should<br>> repeat with low probability. GHASH is a universal hash function,<br>> hence it gives such a guarantee assuming its key is chosen<br>> uniformly at random.<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> tor-dev mailing list<br>> <a href="mailto:tor-dev@lists.torproject.org" target="_blank">tor-dev@lists.torproject.org</a><br>> <a href="https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev</a><br><br><br><o:p></o:p></p></div></body></html>