tor-dev December 2016

tor-dev@lists.torproject.org

25 participants
23 discussions

Re: [tor-dev] protecting users from known relay groups with end-to-end correlation capabilities
by teor 03 Dec '16

03 Dec '16

> On 3 Dec. 2016, at 11:48, Bungeetaco <bungeetaco(a)protonmail.com> wrote: > > Hi there, I have added the following line to the torrc of all my tor nodes and reloaded the daemons: > > MyFamily 629FE436746E0AACDFC93D2DA70B5E269F7ADC79,DA5B2F8C1C7E901374C8A200277A3C927176BF0F,A894ABB7B1A990B5F10BA9CBE668E27BE6C7FEDF > > Been running my two exit nodes for a year now with good management, and I haven't got raided so far so I guess I'm doing this the right way. Glad you guys are reaching out about issues that are easily fixable by operators instead of just blacklisting nodes at random. > If something else needs my attention, feel free to let me know. I love this project ^w^/. Thanks for fixing this so quickly. It should be distributed to all clients within the next few hours. You can check it worked using the "Family Members" on: https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/629FE436746E0AACDFC93D2DA70B5E269F7AD… It will take at least 15 minutes to appear on atlas, and maybe even 75 minutes, if your relays sent updated descriptors after 50 minutes past the hour. Tim > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [tor-dev] protecting users from known relay groups with end-to-end correlation capabilities >> Local Time: December 2, 2016 7:15 PM >> UTC Time: December 3, 2016 12:15 AM >> From: teor2345(a)gmail.com >> To: Bungeetaco <bungeetaco(a)protonmail.com> >> tor-dev(a)lists.torproject.org <tor-dev(a)lists.torproject.org> >> >> >> > On 3 Dec. 2016, at 11:11, Bungeetaco <bungeetaco(a)protonmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > Hi there! I would be more than glad to apply the appropriate modifications to my relay if it means increased security for the users ;D. I care about the security and privacy of the people who pass through my relays, and I take pride in supporting a project which empowers people so much. I decided to run a Middle and 2 exit nodes because I wanted to provide diversified support to the Tor network, I did not intend to jeopardize anyone's privacy or security. >> > >> > Would I need to add the fingerprints of my others nodes in my torrc configuration files? If so, please let me know how to accomplish this and I'll push an update on all my servers ASAP. The last thing I want is create a security risk for the users and/or distrust. >> > >> > Thanks for letting me know about this btw! >> >> Hi Bungeetaco, >> >> On each relay, add a line to the torrc that says: >> >> MyFamily fingerprint,fingerprint,fingerprint,... >> >> Where the fingerprints are the fingerprints of each of your relays. >> >> Tim >> >> > - Bungeetaco >> > https://bungeetaco.com/ >> > >> >> -------- Original Message -------- >> >> Subject: Re: [tor-dev] protecting users from known relay groups with end-to-end correlation capabilities >> >> Local Time: December 2, 2016 5:39 PM >> >> UTC Time: December 2, 2016 10:39 PM >> >> From: teor2345(a)gmail.com >> >> To: tor-dev(a)lists.torproject.org >> >> abuse(a)torworld.org, tor(a)digineo.de, Viktor Nikolov <vnikolov(a)vnikolov.cz>, Nicholas Merrill <nick(a)calyx.com>, bungeetaco(a)protonmail.com, Dmitrii Tcvetkov <demfloro(a)demfloro.ru>, abuse(a)to-surf-and-protect.net, bad-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >> >> >> >> Dear relay operators who are CC'd, >> >> >> >> TL;DR: we're talking about blacklisting your non-exit relays, >> >> because they don't have MyFamily set correctly. >> >> >> >> If you'd like help configuring MyFamily correctly, please let us know. >> >> >> >> > On 3 Dec. 2016, at 08:50, nusenu <nusenu(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: >> >> > >> >> > Hi, >> >> > >> >> > it is a well known fact that MyFamily is a largely ignored setting, >> >> > luckily this is not a problem in most cases because >> >> > >> >> > - all relevant relays are run in a single /16 >> >> > or >> >> > - are only guard relays (exit probability = 0*) >> >> > or >> >> > - are only exit relays (guard probability = 0*) >> >> > >> >> > but there is a limited number of relay groups** that have actual >> >> > end-to-end correlation capabilities, meaning they are potentially chosen >> >> > by tor clients for the guard _and_ exit position, even if the odds are >> >> > (hopefully) not very high. >> >> > >> >> > These potentially dangerous relay groups >> >> > - are run in multiple /16 netblocks >> >> > - have an exit _and_ guard probability of > 0 (because they run exits >> >> > and guards) >> >> > >> >> > Examples (generated daily): >> >> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ornetstats/stats/master/o/potentially_dan… >> >> > (see CC) >> >> >> >> This is a useful check, but it is insufficient. >> >> Can you please produce a similar list for middles and exits by the same >> >> operator? >> >> >> >> (Controlling the middle and exit leads to a guard identification >> >> attack.) >> >> >> >> There's also an attack when an operator controls a guard and a middle. >> >> But that's harder to resolve, albeit much more common. >> >> >> >> > How could the risk for tor clients be reduced? >> >> > (options after enough dir auths came to the conclusion that these relays >> >> > are in fact operated by a single entity) >> >> > >> >> > 1) try to contact the operators and give them time to fix it >> >> > I've done that multiple times but haven't been successful [1] >> >> >> >> Have you tried emailing them individually? >> >> I've typically got better results that way. >> >> >> >> > 2) build tools to easily/automatically manage MyFamily >> >> > done[2], but it is unlikely to be used >> >> >> >> Maybe one solution is to build a generic tool that works with more than >> >> just ansible? >> >> >> >> > 3) assign them the badexit flag >> >> > since exits are a scarce resource, not very wise >> >> >> >> +1 >> >> >> >> > 4) assign them the badguard flag >> >> > there is no such thing ;) >> >> >> >> We have written patches that take away the guard flag. >> >> This would be possible, but it doesn't resolve the issue, because they >> >> will still be used as middle relays. >> >> >> >> However, taking away the guard flag would fix the guard/middle case, >> >> because then all the relays would only be used as middle relays. >> >> >> >> > 5) blacklist the entry guards (that are outside the configured family) >> >> >> >> Yes, this is the best option, because it protects clients from >> >> selecting relays from that operator as either guard or middle. >> >> >> >> (However, operating a bridge and an exit still has the same issue, and >> >> there is no MyFamily for bridges, because that de-anonymises them. As >> >> do the bridge/middle and guard/middle cases. So maybe we should >> >> consider the risks of each case, and whether we want to educate or ban.) >> >> >> >> And, of course, it's worth noting that the ContactInfo might be >> >> incorrect, so we would have to do this on a case-by-case basis, and >> >> convince the directory authority operators it's a sensible thing to do. >> >> >> >> (If someone is using others' ContactInfo, those relays should be >> >> banned.) >> >> >> >> > 6) change tor's path selection algorithm to never choose more than one >> >> > relay with a given non-empty non-default contact string? >> >> > This would basically turn the ContactInfo field into the PoS token >> >> > mentioned by Mike in [3]. Since there are a few common contactInfo >> >> > strings this is probably not the best option without excluding them. >> >> >> >> No, this field is not mutually authenticated, unlike MyFamily. >> >> This leads to an attack where bad relays bias client path selection >> >> using ContactInfo. >> >> >> >> > [1] >> >> > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010965.html >> >> > [2] https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor >> >> > [3] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5565 >> >> > * if we can assume onionoo's values to be accurate and realistic >> >> > ** they are considered to be operated by a single group due to their >> >> > contactInfo descriptor field. This string is not verified in any way and >> >> > can therefore result in false-positives. T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: [tor-dev] protecting users from known relay groups with end-to-end correlation capabilities
by teor 03 Dec '16

03 Dec '16

> On 3 Dec. 2016, at 11:11, Bungeetaco <bungeetaco(a)protonmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > Hi there! I would be more than glad to apply the appropriate modifications to my relay if it means increased security for the users ;D. I care about the security and privacy of the people who pass through my relays, and I take pride in supporting a project which empowers people so much. I decided to run a Middle and 2 exit nodes because I wanted to provide diversified support to the Tor network, I did not intend to jeopardize anyone's privacy or security. > > Would I need to add the fingerprints of my others nodes in my torrc configuration files? If so, please let me know how to accomplish this and I'll push an update on all my servers ASAP. The last thing I want is create a security risk for the users and/or distrust. > > Thanks for letting me know about this btw! Hi Bungeetaco, On each relay, add a line to the torrc that says: MyFamily fingerprint,fingerprint,fingerprint,... Where the fingerprints are the fingerprints of each of your relays. Tim > - Bungeetaco > https://bungeetaco.com/ > >> -------- Original Message -------- >> Subject: Re: [tor-dev] protecting users from known relay groups with end-to-end correlation capabilities >> Local Time: December 2, 2016 5:39 PM >> UTC Time: December 2, 2016 10:39 PM >> From: teor2345(a)gmail.com >> To: tor-dev(a)lists.torproject.org >> abuse(a)torworld.org, tor(a)digineo.de, Viktor Nikolov <vnikolov(a)vnikolov.cz>, Nicholas Merrill <nick(a)calyx.com>, bungeetaco(a)protonmail.com, Dmitrii Tcvetkov <demfloro(a)demfloro.ru>, abuse(a)to-surf-and-protect.net, bad-relays(a)lists.torproject.org >> >> Dear relay operators who are CC'd, >> >> TL;DR: we're talking about blacklisting your non-exit relays, >> because they don't have MyFamily set correctly. >> >> If you'd like help configuring MyFamily correctly, please let us know. >> >> > On 3 Dec. 2016, at 08:50, nusenu <nusenu(a)openmailbox.org> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > it is a well known fact that MyFamily is a largely ignored setting, >> > luckily this is not a problem in most cases because >> > >> > - all relevant relays are run in a single /16 >> > or >> > - are only guard relays (exit probability = 0*) >> > or >> > - are only exit relays (guard probability = 0*) >> > >> > but there is a limited number of relay groups** that have actual >> > end-to-end correlation capabilities, meaning they are potentially chosen >> > by tor clients for the guard _and_ exit position, even if the odds are >> > (hopefully) not very high. >> > >> > These potentially dangerous relay groups >> > - are run in multiple /16 netblocks >> > - have an exit _and_ guard probability of > 0 (because they run exits >> > and guards) >> > >> > Examples (generated daily): >> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ornetstats/stats/master/o/potentially_dan… >> > (see CC) >> >> This is a useful check, but it is insufficient. >> Can you please produce a similar list for middles and exits by the same >> operator? >> >> (Controlling the middle and exit leads to a guard identification >> attack.) >> >> There's also an attack when an operator controls a guard and a middle. >> But that's harder to resolve, albeit much more common. >> >> > How could the risk for tor clients be reduced? >> > (options after enough dir auths came to the conclusion that these relays >> > are in fact operated by a single entity) >> > >> > 1) try to contact the operators and give them time to fix it >> > I've done that multiple times but haven't been successful [1] >> >> Have you tried emailing them individually? >> I've typically got better results that way. >> >> > 2) build tools to easily/automatically manage MyFamily >> > done[2], but it is unlikely to be used >> >> Maybe one solution is to build a generic tool that works with more than >> just ansible? >> >> > 3) assign them the badexit flag >> > since exits are a scarce resource, not very wise >> >> +1 >> >> > 4) assign them the badguard flag >> > there is no such thing ;) >> >> We have written patches that take away the guard flag. >> This would be possible, but it doesn't resolve the issue, because they >> will still be used as middle relays. >> >> However, taking away the guard flag would fix the guard/middle case, >> because then all the relays would only be used as middle relays. >> >> > 5) blacklist the entry guards (that are outside the configured family) >> >> Yes, this is the best option, because it protects clients from >> selecting relays from that operator as either guard or middle. >> >> (However, operating a bridge and an exit still has the same issue, and >> there is no MyFamily for bridges, because that de-anonymises them. As >> do the bridge/middle and guard/middle cases. So maybe we should >> consider the risks of each case, and whether we want to educate or ban.) >> >> And, of course, it's worth noting that the ContactInfo might be >> incorrect, so we would have to do this on a case-by-case basis, and >> convince the directory authority operators it's a sensible thing to do. >> >> (If someone is using others' ContactInfo, those relays should be >> banned.) >> >> > 6) change tor's path selection algorithm to never choose more than one >> > relay with a given non-empty non-default contact string? >> > This would basically turn the ContactInfo field into the PoS token >> > mentioned by Mike in [3]. Since there are a few common contactInfo >> > strings this is probably not the best option without excluding them. >> >> No, this field is not mutually authenticated, unlike MyFamily. >> This leads to an attack where bad relays bias client path selection >> using ContactInfo. >> >> > [1] >> > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010965.html >> > [2] https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor >> > [3] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5565 >> > * if we can assume onionoo's values to be accurate and realistic >> > ** they are considered to be operated by a single group due to their >> > contactInfo descriptor field. This string is not verified in any way and >> > can therefore result in false-positives. >> >> T >> >> -- >> Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) >> >> teor2345 at gmail dot com >> PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B >> ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n >> xmpp: teor at torproject dot org >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> >> > T -- Tim Wilson-Brown (teor) teor2345 at gmail dot com PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n xmpp: teor at torproject dot org ------------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

[PATCH] torspec: Keep proposal-status.txt up to date
by George Kadianakis 01 Dec '16

01 Dec '16

Hello, I was in a train yesterday and decided to do some torspec housekeeping. So I updated the proposals/proposal-status.txt file which includes a summary of every proposal. You can find my changes here: https://gitweb.torproject.org/user/asn/torspec.git/commit/?h=proposal-statu… Please let me know if you see anything wrong with it. Otherwise, I will merge this to torspec soon since it's probably better than the status quo. Of course, there are still things we can do to make proposal-status.txt better, and also I bet some of the old proposals have changed status since they were written. I updated a few of them, but I didn't do all of them. Cheers!

2 2

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

2012

2011

tor-dev December 2016