- tor-dev - lists.torproject.org

Re: [tor-dev] [tor-relays] Relays running an unsupported (EOL) Tor version
by grarpamp 28 Oct '21

28 Oct '21

> mpan: >> Is there any data available that sheds light on >> why operators run outdated versions Besides latent OS packages, or being busy, or simply not updating things, those are natures of computing world anyway... or having no network operations crypto-monetization model as some nextgen p2p overlay-exit networks are now working with... there can be other reasons people may run different versions... tor the software is different from from Tor Project Inc. The software is opensource and BSD licensed. Thus anyone may copy, run, share, redistribute, fork, modify, support it, create and vote in any consensus, run relays, run more networks than just tor on their nodes, run services, etc, completely without involvement from, and indeed in full disregard of whatever Tor Project Inc and its people may say. The tor protocol, code, and operational network are not the property of Tor Project Inc, nor are its operators and users under its command and control. tor's users may run whichever of the many tor client implementations they wish to run, and may run whatever protocols, applications, and uses over the tor network that they wish. tor's relay operators and dirauths are free to run and support the running of older, different, forked, or project protocol addition enhancement or migration versions, in part in order to support features that some of the entire global userbase of tor are using, and have no good replacement for, or may wish to develop apps to, and run them upon or over, such features and capabilities in the future. Such as the censored topic of v2 onions with OnionCat, OnionVPN, etc in order to continue or design, deploy, and run new p2p apps comms, etc over those, ie... https://www.onioncat.org/ So a large number of relays may be freely and rightly choosing, as is their right if they wish, to continue running a v2 onion version for that. And overlay nets have some great uses, some examples of which Tor Project advertises, such that those users or even operators may prefer not to post, so you may want to consider some of those good uses for them in their stead, even ones that are dependent on such versions. And another topical fact re versions, which will be censored, is that attackers do falsify their version strings, and a lot more, in order to run whatever custom exploits they want against the network. And that Traffic Analysis and Sybil attacks nodes are real and in use. And that there is no longer sufficient warning and ongoing visibly posted education on these and other matters, in particular at point of download, install, splashpage, and frontpage... even some warnings were removed... versioned away. These are the sort of lack of info that can put users at severe risk. Tor Project Inc is censoring embarassing or simple facts / info. And is now attempting to silence and kill useful and in use features and future application possibilities based on them, whitewashing them with handwavy vague absolutist claims such as "old" or "insecure", instead of creating detailed comparisons for users. tor's users and operators are the ones who get to choose their own versions, and use appropriate features / freedom / security tradeoffs, not by the sole dictate of Tor Project Inc. Which by the way is funded to $Millions per year so that is not an argument to killing otherwise modularizable features either, but may be why there are insufficient disclaimers, and censors. On 10/28/21, Georg Koppen <gk(a)torproject.org> wrote: > I don't think we have [...] feedback Well when Tor's hypocrites, liars, and frauds are censoring feedback etc off all their "bricked up" fora, full stop. Thus their users and operators are missing information and topical discussions may hardly flourish can they in an environment of censor, chilled, and steered speech. The censorship of conversation on tor by Tor Project Inc and its people... while publicizing claims to cherish and uphold Free Speech ideals... is blatantly hypocritical, and it must end.

1 0

Arti report 8: October 14 through October 27
by Nick Mathewson 27 Oct '21

27 Oct '21

# Arti Report 7: October 14 through October 27 # Towards Arti 0.0.1 On Monday November 1, we're planning to put out Arti version 0.0.1. Our goal is to include all the features that are needed for reasonable security, and a top-level API that isn't _so_ far from completely wrong. Right now, it looks like we're in good shape for that timeline. Since the last update, we've fixed a lot of smaller issues, including: * running out of files on OSX * making it harder to accidentally leak DNS requests * lots of API refactoring * restored the ability for multiple Arti instances to share a single set of local directories * easier setup * easier API for stream isolatoin * more reliable tests for asynchronous timeout-based logic * and more! We're now working on documentation and usability. There's now an example program in [`crates/arti-client/examples`](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/blob/main/crates/arti-client/examples/hyper.rs) that uses [`hyper`](https://hyper.rs/) to download an HTTP document, and we're adding examples elsewhere in our top-level API documentation. # Followup from our guard implementation Our work on guards (completed in the last round) has kicked off a new batch of guard research. As with other parts of the Tor protocols, implementing our specification in Rust has exposed some weaknesses or confusing points in our design. In response to issues that we found, we've opened a few issues and written a couple of proposals to improve our code. For example, see: * [Proposal 336](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/blob/main/proposals/3…, to randomize guard retry timing. * [Proposal 337](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/blob/main/proposals/3…, to describe a simpler formulation of our guard behavior. * [torspec#67](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/issues/67), to treat guards as usable more eagerly. * [torspec#68](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/issues/68), to improve our behavior when our primary guards are down. # What's next Once the next release is out, we'll turn our attention to Arti 0.1.0. For that release, our priority target is beta testing and experimental embedding. We'll be working to improve performance and to stabilize a set of stable APIs to provide a wider set of functionality for applications that want to embed Arti in different scenarios. We'll need your help, though: we will need feedback from everybody who's interested in using our code, in order to make sure that we're providing solid, usable interfaces that do what you need. Please try it out, and let us know what's bad or missing! We're hoping to get Arti 0.1.0 released some time in March of 2022, with multiple smaller update releases between now and then. At our bi-weekly meeting next Wednesday, we'll be prioritizing tasks for the next set of releases, and refining our roadmap for the coming months. Why not join us? Information is on the [meeting pad](https://pad.riseup.net/p/arti-meeting-pad-keep). # Thanks! Thanks to Jani Monoses and Dimitris Apostolou for their patches in this release! And special thanks and welcome to eta, our new team member! She's started with Tor last Tuesday, and has hit the ground running, already fixing substantial bugs and refactoring a bunch of tricky code. It's great to watch the pace and quality of our development improve as more people join the team!

1 0

Proposal 337: A simpler way to decide, "Is this guard usable?"
by Nick Mathewson 22 Oct '21

22 Oct '21

``` Filename: 337-simpler-guard-usability.md Title: A simpler way to decide, "Is this guard usable?" Author: Nick Mathewson Created: 2021-10-22 Status: Open ``` # Introduction The current `guard-spec` describes a mechanism for how to behave when our primary guards are unreachable, and we don't know which other guards are reachable. This proposal describes a simpler method, currently implemented in [Arti](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/). (Note that this method might not actually give different results: its only advantage is that it is much simpler to implement.) ## The task at hand For illustration, we'll assume that our primary guards are P1, P2, and P3, and our subsequent guards (in preference order) are G1, G2, G3, and so on. The status of each guard is Reachable (we think we can connect to it), Unreachable (we think it's down), or Unknown (we haven't tried it recently). The question becomes, "What should we do when P1, P2, and P3 are Unreachable, and G1, G2, ... are all Unknown"? In this circumstance, we _could_ say that we only build circuits to G1, wait for them to succeed or fail, and only try G2 if we see that the circuits to G1 have failed completely. But that delays in the case that G1 is down. Instead, the first time we get a circuit request, we try to build one circuit to G1. On the next circuit request, if the circuit to G1 isn't done yet, we launch a circuit to G2 instead. The next request (if the G1 and G2 circuits are still pending) goes to G3, and so on. But (here's the critical part!) we don't actually _use_ the circuit to G2 unless the circuit to G1 fails, and we don't actually _use_ the circuit to G3 unless the circuits to G1 and G2 both fail. This approach causes Tor clients to check the status of multiple possible guards in parallel, while not actually _using_ any guard until we're sure that all the guards we'd rather use are down. ## The current algorithm and its drawbacks For the current algorithm, see `guard-spec` section 4.9: circuits are exploratory if they are not using a primary guard. If such an exploratory circuit is `waiting_for_better_guard`, then we advance it (or not) depending on the status of all other _circuits_ using guards that we'd rather be using. In other words, the current algorithm is described in terms of actions to take with given circuits. For Arti (and for other modular Tor implementations), however, this algorithm is a bit of a pain: it introduces dependencies between the guard code and the circuit handling code, requiring each one to mess with the other. # Proposal I suggest that we describe an alternative algorithm for handing circuits to non-primary guards, to be used in preference to the current algorithm. Unlike the existing approach, it isolates the guard logic a bit better from the circuit logic. ## Handling exploratory circuits When all primary guards are Unreachable, we need to try non-primary guards. We select the first such guard (in preference order) that is neither Unreachable nor Pending. Whenever we give out such a guard, if the guard's status is Unknown, then we call that guard "Pending" until the attempt to use it succeeds or fails. We remember when the guard became Pending. > Aside: None of the above is a change from our existing specification. After completing a circuit, the implementation must check whether its guard is usable. A guard is usable according to these rules: Primary guards are always usable. Non-primary guards are usable for a given circuit if every guard earlier in the preference list is either unsuitable for that circuit (e.g. because of family restrictions), or marked as Unreachable, or has been pending for at least `{NONPRIMARY_GUARD_CONNECT_TIMEOUT}`. Non-primary guards are unusable for a given circuit if some guard earlier in the preference list is suitable for the circuit _and_ Reachable. Non-primary guards are unusable if they have not become usable after `{NONPRIMARY_GUARD_IDLE_TIMEOUT}` seconds. If a circuit's guard is neither usable nor unusable immediately, the circuit is not discarded; instead, it is kept (but not used) until it becomes usable or unusable. > I am not 100% sure whether this description produces the same behavior > as the current guard-spec, but it is simpler to describe, and has > proven to be simpler to implement. ## Implications for program design. (This entire section is implementation detail to explain why this is a simplification from the previous algorithm. It is for explanatory purposes only and is not part of the spec.) With this algorithm, we cut down the interaction between the guard code and the circuit code considerably, but we do not remove it entirely. Instead, there remains (in Arti terms) a pair of communication channels between the circuit manager and the guard manager: * Whenever a guard is given to the circuit manager, the circuit manager receives the write end of a single-use channel to report whether the guard has succeeded or failed. * Whenever a non-primary guard is given to the circuit manager, the circuit receives the read end of a single-use channel that will tell it whether the guard is usable or unusable. This channel doesn't report anything until the guard has one status or the other. With this design, the circuit manager never needs to look at the list of guards, and the guard manager never needs to look at the list of circuits. ## Subtleties concerning "guard success" Note that the above definitions of a Reachable guard depend on reporting when the _guard_ is successful or failed. This is not necessarily the same as reporting whether the _circuit_ is successful or failed. For example, a circuit that fails after the first hop does not necessarily indicate that there's anything wrong with the guard. Similarly, we can reasonably conclude that the guard is working (at least somewhat) as long as we have an open channel to it.

2 1

Proposal 336: Randomized schedule for guard retries
by Nick Mathewson 22 Oct '21

22 Oct '21

``` Filename: 336-randomize-guard-retries.md Title: Randomized schedule for guard retries Author: Nick Mathewson Created: 2021-10-22 Status: Open ``` # Introduction When we notice that a guard isn't working, we don't mark it as retriable until a certain interval has passed. Currently, these intervals are fixed, as described in the documentation for `GUARDS_RETRY_SCHED` in `guard-spec` appendix A.1. Here we propose using a randomized retry interval instead, based on the same decorrelated-jitter algorithm we use for directory retries. The upside of this approach is that it makes our behavior in the presence of an unreliable network a bit harder for an attacker to predict. It also means that if a guard goes down for a while, its clients will notice that it is up at staggered times, rather than probing it in lock-step. The downside of this approach is that we can, if we get unlucky enough, completely fail to notice that a preferred guard is online when we would otherwise have noticed sooner. Note that when a guard is marked retriable, it isn't necessarily retried immediately. Instead, its status is changed from "Unreachable" to "Unknown", which will cause it to get retried. For reference, our previous schedule was: ``` {param:PRIMARY_GUARDS_RETRY_SCHED} -- every 10 minutes for the first six hours, -- every 90 minutes for the next 90 hours, -- every 4 hours for the next 3 days, -- every 9 hours thereafter. {param:GUARDS_RETRY_SCHED} -- -- every hour for the first six hours, -- every 4 hours for the next 90 hours, -- every 18 hours for the next 3 days, -- every 36 hours thereafter. ``` # The new algorithm We re-use the decorrelated-jitter algorithm from `dir-spec` section 5.5. The specific formula used to compute the 'i+1'th delay is: ``` Delay_{i+1} = MIN(cap, random_between(lower_bound, upper_bound)) where upper_bound = MAX(lower_bound+1, Delay_i * 3) lower_bound = MAX(1, base_delay). ``` For primary guards, we set base_delay to 30 seconds and cap to 6 hours. For non-primary guards, we set base_delay to 10 minutes and cap to 36 hours. (These parameters were selected by simulating the results of using them until they looked "a bit more aggressive" than the current algorithm, but not too much.) The average behavior for the new primary schedule is: ``` First 1.0 hours: 10.14283 attempts. (Avg delay 4m 47.41s) First 6.0 hours: 19.02377 attempts. (Avg delay 15m 36.95s) First 96.0 hours: 56.11173 attempts. (Avg delay 1h 40m 3.13s) First 168.0 hours: 83.67091 attempts. (Avg delay 1h 58m 43.16s) Steady state: 2h 36m 44.63s between attempts. ``` The average behavior for the new non-primary schedule is: ``` First 1.0 hours: 3.08069 attempts. (Avg delay 14m 26.08s) First 6.0 hours: 8.1473 attempts. (Avg delay 35m 25.27s) First 96.0 hours: 22.57442 attempts. (Avg delay 3h 49m 32.16s) First 168.0 hours: 29.02873 attempts. (Avg delay 5h 27m 2.36s) Steady state: 11h 15m 28.47s between attempts. ```

2 1

Proposal 335: An authority-only design for MiddleOnly
by Nick Mathewson 17 Oct '21

17 Oct '21

``` Filename: 335-middle-only-redux.md Title: An authority-only design for MiddleOnly Author: Nick Mathewson Created: 2021-10-08 Status: Open ``` # Introduction This proposal describes an alternative design for a `MiddleOnly` flag. Instead of making changes at the client level, it adds a little increased complexity at the directory authority's voting process. In return for that complexity, this design will work without additional changes required from Tor clients. For additional motivation and discussion see proposal 334 by Neel Chauhan, and the related discussions on tor-dev. # Protocol changes ## Generating votes When voting for a relay with the `MiddleOnly` flag, an authority should set all flags indicating that a relay is unusable for a particular purpose, and against all flags indicating that the relay is usable for a particular position. These flags SHOULD be set in a vote whenever `MiddleOnly` is present, and only when the authority is configured to vote on the `BadExit` flag. * `BadExit` These flags SHOULD be cleared in a vote whenever `MiddleOnly` is present. * `Exit` * `Guard` * `HSDir` * `V2Dir` ## Computing a consensus This proposal will introduce a new consensus method (probably 32). Whenever computing a consensus using that consensus method or later, authorities post-process the set of flags that appear in the consensus after flag voting takes place, by applying the same rule as above. That is, with this consensus method, the authorities first compute the presence or absence of each flag on each relay as usual. Then, if the `MiddleOnly` flag is present, the authorities set `BadExit`, and clear `Exit`, `Guard`, `HSDir`, and `V2Dir`. # Configuring authorities We'll need a means for configuring which relays will receive this flag. For now, we'll just reuse the same mechanism as `AuthDirReject` and `AuthDirBadExit`: a set of torrc configuration lines listing relays by address. We'll call this `AuthDirMiddleOnly`. We'll also add an `AuthDirListsMiddleOnly` option to turn on or off voting on this option at all. # Notes on safety and migration Under this design, the MiddleOnly option becomes useful immediately, since authorities that use it will stop voting for certain additional options for MiddleOnly relays without waiting for the other authorities. We don't need to worry about a single authority setting MiddleOnly unilaterally for all relays, since the MiddleOnly flag will have no special effect until most authorities have upgraded to the new consensus method.

3 2

Arti report 7: September 30 through October 13
by Nick Mathewson 14 Oct '21

14 Oct '21

# Arti Report 7: September 30 through October 13 ## Guards are working! Finally, at long last, we've got Guard nodes working in Arti! When we first made our roadmap, we set our first milestone as "Arti has all the features necessary for basic anonymity." Now that Guards are implemented, all of those features are done! Does this mean that Arti is now production-ready for anonymous use? No, not yet. Just because we no longer have _missing_ privacy features doesn't mean that those privacy features are actually implemented correctly. We'll need a lot more testing, debugging, and experimentation. Also, it's very possible we've forgotten something. We'll need careful auditing to be sure. ### Interesting guard issues There are more issues to fix and features to add to the guard implementation down the road. For a current list, have a look at [this comment](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/issues/58#note_27549…, which lists them. ## What's next Over the next couple of weeks, we'll be working on smaller issues, bugfixes, and miscellaneous cleanups for an upcoming "0.0.1" release, targeting November 1. You can see our latest progress [here]((https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/arti/-/milestones/6). ## Thanks! Thanks to Jani Monoses for progress towards a WASM port, and Trinity Pointard for updates to dependencies.

1 0

IANA well-known URI suffix registration for tor-relay-fingerprints file
by nusenu 10 Oct '21

10 Oct '21

Hi, to reduce the risk of certain kinds of attacks I'm aiming to submit a short spec (like [1]) in accordance with RFC8615 https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8615#section-3.1 for the registration of of a suffix for the verifyurl from https://github.com/nusenu/ContactInfo-Information-Sharing-Specification#ver… The name I have in mind is: tor-relay-fingerprints The file contains comments (lines starting with #) and relay fingerprints. https://www.iana.org/assignments/well-known-uris/well-known-uris.xhtml Let me know if you have any feedback on this and whether you have any opinion on whether you (The Torproject) wants to be the change controller. The only question that came up was: Will there be two types of relay fingerprints in the future (Ed25519)? thanks, nusenu -- https://mastodon.social/@nusenu [1] https://keybase.io/docs/keybase_well_known

5 22

tor Prometheus Metrics Documentation
by nusenu 10 Oct '21

10 Oct '21

Hi, since Neel is working on unix socket support [1] for MetricsPort I'm preparing to add support for it to relayor. I don't like to add additional attack surface to a relay but since tor does not support TLS and basic auth on the MetricsPort I'll likely install nginx that takes care of TLS and authentication. If you have any opinion on that I'd also like to hear it. It would be nice to have a documentation for all tor prometheus metrics in the man page or on a website, some information can be found at [3] but not all. Is there already a complete documentation for tor prometheus metrics data? Here is an example of how other projects have documented their metrics [5]. I don't know if it is too late for that but it would be great to use the well known IANA RCODE [4] naming for the DNS return codes where possible instead of the custom naming. examples (just guessing): tor_relay_exit_dns_error_total{... reason="format"} -> FormErr? tor_relay_exit_dns_error_total{... reason="notexist"} -> NXDomain? kind regards, nusenu [1] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/merge_requests/453 [3] https://support.torproject.org/relay-operators/relay-bridge-overloaded/ [4] https://www.iana.org/assignments/dns-parameters/dns-parameters.xhtml#dns-pa… [5] https://doc.powerdns.com/recursor/metrics.html#metricnames related feature request: [2] https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor/-/issues/40194 -- https://nusenu.github.io

1 0

ed25519_master_id_public_key -> ed25519 id
by nusenu 10 Oct '21

10 Oct '21

Hi, given a relay's ed25519_master_id_public_key file, is there a simple way to generate the 43 chars long ed25519 identity string (also found in fingerprint-ed25519)? thanks, nusenu -- https://nusenu.github.io

2 3

Re: [tor-dev] Proposal 335: An authority-only design for MiddleOnly
by ezhigp＠Safe-mail.net 08 Oct '21

08 Oct '21

> ``` > Filename: 335-middle-only-redux.md > Title: An authority-only design for MiddleOnly > Author: Nick Mathewson > Created: 2021-10-08 > Status: Open > ... > > These flags SHOULD be set in a vote whenever `MiddleOnly` is > present, and only when the authority is configured to vote on the > `BadExit` flag. > > * `BadExit` > > These flags SHOULD be cleared in a vote whenever `MiddleOnly` is > present. > > * `Exit` I believe that BadExit is supposed to be given together with Exit, to mark that technically it's possible to exit from this relay, but it is not recommended unless you know what you do. > * `Guard` > * `HSDir` > * `V2Dir` It looks like we don't fear such a relay at Intro? Or it is a sign that this proposal is only a set of quick actions before #334?

1 0