- tor-dev - lists.torproject.org

Statistical inference in live network perf experiments
by Jansen, Robert G CIV USN NRL (5543) Washington DC (USA) 18 Oct '20

18 Oct '20

Hello Mike and David! I see that we are in the process of testing some changes to KIST parameters, and have more upcoming perf experiments planned. It will be great to gather additional information to help us better understand how to improve Tor performance :) My main concern about running experiments on the live network is the lack of control [0] across the uncountable number of confounding variables present across the network. Because of the lack of control, I strongly advise that statistical inference techniques are applied when conducting the experiments and analyzing the results. Ideally you will estimate and quantify sources of systematic error. Repeated trials and A/B testing (when that makes sense) will help increase our confidence in your results. We have some recent work on these topics (in submission). DM if you are interested in a copy of the paper. Peace, love, and positivity, Rob [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_control

1 1

Improving Tor network models [was: Update to Proposal 316: FlashFlow]
by Jansen, Robert G CIV USN NRL (5543) Washington DC (USA) 17 Oct '20

17 Oct '20

> > On Oct 8, 2020, at 2:50 PM, Mike Perry <mikeperry(a)torproject.org> wrote: > > I do not yet have confidence that these issues are solved simply because > they did not appear in Shadow. Shadow does not simulate multi-instance > relays, CPU bound relays, or structural load imbalances in the network. Hi Mike and others! I'd like to better understand your criticisms here so that we can work to make Shadow more useful (work that fits squarely under sponsor 38). > multi-instance relays Nothing prevents Shadow from running multiple tor relay processes on the same virtual host. We could add this to the Tor models that are created by our model generation tool[0]. One issue is that we don't have ground truth about: - which relays are co-resident with one another; and - the capacity of the machine hosting the co-resident relays. A short term fix could be that we look at relays in the same family, and randomly choose some of them to run on the same machine (setting the capacity of the machine as the sum of max observed bandwidth of the co-resident relays). A longer term solution would be to add a new parameter similar to MyFamily and ask operators to identify which relays are co-resident, or add to tor a self-measurement of co-residency - and that would provide the ground truth we would need for accurate modeling. Thoughts? Any other ideas? > CPU-bound relays There are two issues here: - we need to improve/rewrite our virtual CPU module in Shadow that accounts for CPU load; and - we need ground truth about the number of CPUs and CPU speeds for each relay. The first one is relatively straightforward to resolve, the second one again requires some form of self-reporting or automated self-measurement in tor. > structural load imbalances Could you please explain this one in a couple more sentences? By 'structural' I think you might mean imbalances across relay positions (i.e., more guard bandwidth and less exit bandwidth). If so, then Shadow does already properly account for this by statically assigning flags using the TestingDirAuthVoteExit and TestingDirAuthVoteGuard torrc options. Here are some bonus ones for you: > capacity of relays We currently use the maximum observed bandwidth that we've seen for a relay and set that value as the network link capacity of the (virtual) host machine that runs reach relay. Again, we don't have any ground truth of how much capacity is available to each relay, though maybe someday FlashFlow will collect it for us. > diversity of Tor versions We should make sure our modeling tool includes relays across different versions of Tor, since not all relays in the public network run the same version. This one is pretty simple to fix (it just requires us to build Tor plugins multiple different Tor source versions) but research that is testing how a new idea performs across the network by modifying Tor source will obviously need to use their custom research version of Tor. Peace, love, and positivity, Rob [0] https://github.com/shadow/tornetgen

1 0

Update to Proposal 316: FlashFlow
by Matt Traudt 08 Oct '20

08 Oct '20

Hi all I polished up the FlashFlow proposal based on the feedback provided by Teor, Nick, and Mike. I converted it to markdown, and pasted the new text at the bottom of this email. The updated proposal is also in my fork of torspec is on gitlab [0]; the branch with the changes is "flashflow-revision". I'd like to address Nick's concerns [1] again [2]. 1. Measurers get to consume lots of bandwidth at relays. Malicious measurers could do bad things. More generally, these measurements may induce traffic patterns that assist traffic analysis. Measurers are trusted entities. In practice we expect each bwauth wanting to run FlashFlow to run a deployment entirely on their own despite FF's design allowing people they trust to run the measurers. I do not think measurers themselves being malicious is a major concern. Relays target some ratio of background/measurement traffic during a measurement. If the amount of traffic they normally see is less than the amount of background traffic allowed by this ratio during a measurement, then there should be no observable impact on the background traffic during the measurement. To illustrate: assume the ratio is 25%. A relay that is only forwarding traffic at 10% of its capacity will not have to throttle traffic during the measurement. But what about relays that *do* handle more traffic than the ratio allows? First an easy mitigation (not solution): The ratio can be raised, thus reducing the number of relays with normal background traffic levels exceeding it. We suggest a ratio of 25% (maximum inflation factor of 1.33); it could be raised to, say, 50% (2.0) or even 75% (4.0) if we're okay with an adversary doubling or quadrupling its weight (how? [fn1]). I assume this is not okay. Another easy mitigation: relay capacities don't change very often, so don't measure every relay every day like we suggest. Measure new relays ASAP, but for relays with an existing measurement, only measure them once a week. Just like that, the adversary has to wait much longer for the FF-induced pattern. Another idea: first group the relays (say, randomly by hashing their keys into k bins, with maybe k=10). If the entire network could be measured in t time (we showed howe 5h–6h might currently suffice), then we could have each group of relays simultaneously start restricting background traffic at a different p=t/k period of time (for k=10 and t=6 hours, we would have p=36 minutes). All relays in a group would be measured during their period. This would reduce performance overall but would limit the adversary to learning from the FF attack only the group that a measured relay is in. Finally we note that the measurement schedule is random and known only to the bwauths/coordinators. Unless the adversary has infiltrated a FF deployment or bwauth, attacks involving the adversary referencing a known schedule should not be possible. The adversary could maintain connections through all relays and monitor each for a drop in performance indicating it's under measurement; however, they have the burden of performing this monitoring, making it more costly and similar to just performing the attack (introducing spikes/patterns/congestion) itself. Moreover, if the adversary were able to monitor performance of all relays over time in this way, then he could just use natural variations in performance (due to varying client load) to perform the correlation attack anyway: "Stealthy Traffic Analysis of Low-Latency Anonymous Communication Using Throughput Fingerprinting" Prateek Mittal et al. ACM CCS 2011 https://dl.acm.org/doi/pdf/10.1145/2046707.2046732 2. MEAS_BG cells leak way too much info These cells go to the FF coordinators, operated by the bwauths. Coords don't use these cells beyond calculating the capacities of relays. An adversary looking at v3bw files or votes does not learn anything about the amount of background traffic that went through a relay during its measurement. 3. Do cell crypto, use circuits As mentioned in [2], the implementation is starting out doing cell crypto on all cells at the measurer. The proposal has been updated to clarify that circuits are used and the measurement traffic (MEAS_ECHO cells) are RELAY cells. 4. Use a pseudorandom stream function to generate cells Good idea that we will investigate and talk about more. Again, we're worried about the measurer's CPU ending up being a bottleneck before its network, which happened to us in prototyping: the measurer was at 100% CPU while a relay on the same type of machine was not yet 5. IPs for measurer identification (copy/paste from previous response to Nick) It's the short term deployment that we propose use IP addresses for identification. At this point there's 1 FlashFlow deployment being operated by us and measuring relays that have opted in to running our patches (realistically: just us, but hopefully some adventurous operators too). In the medium/long term coords/measurers will use proper TLS identities that will be checked by the relays. Maybe that's still unacceptable, but I just wanted to make that clear. [0]: https://gitlab.torproject.org/pastly/torspec [1]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2020-June/014341.html [2]: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2020-June/014342.html [fn1]: The relay allocates all its bandwidth to measurement traffic (leaving none for background traffic), yet claim lots of background traffic. The relay will be trusted to be telling the truth up to the ratio. A 1 Gbit/s relay that sustains 1 Gbit/s of measurement traffic can claim up to: 333 Mbit/s of client traffic (r=25%), 1 Gbit/s (r=50%), 3 Gbit/s (r=75%). In general, the inflation factor is calculated 1/(1-r). ---------------------------------------- ``` Filename: 316-flashflow.txt Title: FlashFlow: A Secure Speed Test for Tor (Parent Proposal) Author: Matthew Traudt, Aaron Johnson, Rob Jansen, Mike Perry Created: 23 April 2020 Status: Draft ``` # 1. Introduction FlashFlow is a new distributed bandwidth measurement system for Tor that consists of a single authority node ("coordinator") instructing one or more measurement nodes ("measurers") when and how to measure Tor relays. A measurement consists of the following steps: 1. The measurement nodes demonstrate to the target relay permission to perform measurements. 2. The measurement nodes open many TCP connections to the target relay and create a one-hop circuit to the target relay on each one. 3. For 30 seconds the measurement nodes send measurement cells to the target relay and verify that the cells echoed back match the ones sent. During this time the relay caps the amount of background traffic it transfers. Background and measurement traffic are handled separately at the relay. Measurement traffic counts towards all the standard existing relay statistics. 4. For every second during the measurement, the measurement nodes report to the authority node how much traffic was echoed back. The target relay also reports the amount of per-second background (non-measurement) traffic. 5. The authority node sums the per-second reported throughputs into 30 sums (one for each second) and calculates the median. This is the estimated capacity of the relay. FlashFlow performs a measurement of every relay according to a schedule described later in this document. Periodically it produces relay capacity estimates in the form of a v3bw file, which is suitable for direct consumption by a Tor directory authority. Alternatively an existing load balancing system such as Simple Bandwidth Scanner could be modified to use FlashFlow's v3bw file as input. It is envisioned that each directory authority that wants to use FlashFlow will run their own FlashFlow deployment consisting of a coordinator that they run and one or more measurers that they trust (e.g. because they run them themselves), similar to how each runs their own Torflow/sbws. Section 5 of this proposal describes long term plans involving multiple FlashFlow deployments. *FlashFlow coordinators do not need to communicate with each other*. FlashFlow is more performant than Torflow: FlashFlow takes 5 hours to measure the entire existing Tor network from scratch (with 3 Gbit/s measurer capacity) while Torflow takes 2 days; FlashFlow measures relays it hasn't seen recently as soon as it learns about them (i.e. every new consensus) while Torflow can take a day or more; and FlashFlow accurately measures new high-capacity relays the first time and every time while Torflow takes days/weeks to assign them their full fair share of bandwidth (especially for non-exits). FlashFlow is more secure than Torflow: FlashFlow allows a relay to inflate its measured capacity by up to 1.33x (configured by a parameter) while Torflow allows weight inflation by a factor of 89x [0] or even 177x [1]. After an overview in section 2 of the planned deployment stages, section 3, 4, and 5 discuss the short, medium, and long term deployment plans in more detail. # 2. Deployment Stages FlashFlow's deployment shall be broken up into three stages. In the short term we will implement a working FlashFlow measurement system. This requires code changes in little-t tor and an external FlashFlow codebase. The majority of the implementation work will be done in the short term, and the product is a complete FlashFlow measurement system. Remaining pieces (e.g. better authentication) are added later for enhanced security and network performance. In the medium term we will begin collecting data with a FlashFlow deployment. The intermediate results and v3bw files produced will be made available (semi?) publicly for study. In the long term experiments will be performed to study ways of using FF v3bw files to improve load balancing. Two examples: (1) using FF v3bw files instead of sbws's (and eventually phasing out torflow/sbws), and (2) continuing to run sbws but use FF's results as a better estimate of relay capacity than observed bandwidth. Authentication and other FlashFlow features necessary to make it completely ready for full production deployment will be worked on during this long term phase. # 3. FlashFlow measurement system: Short term The core measurement mechanics will be implemented in little-t tor, but a separate codebase for the FlashFlow side of the measurement system will also be created. This section is divided into three parts: first a discussion of changes/additions that logically reside entirely within tor (essentially: relay-side modifications), second a discussion of the separate FlashFlow code that also requires some amount of tor changes (essentially: measurer-side and coordinator-side modifications), and third a security discussion. ## 3.1 Little-T Tor Components The primary additions/changes that entirely reside within tor on the relay side: - New torrc options/consensus parameters. - New cell commands. - Pre-measurement handshaking (with a simplified authentication scheme). - Measurement mode, during which the relay will echo traffic with measurers, set a cap on the amount of background traffic it transfers, and report the amount of transferred background traffic. ### 3.1.1 Parameters FlashFlow will require some consensus parameters/torrc options. Each has some default value if nothing is specified; the consensus parameter overrides this default value; the torrc option overrides both. FFMeasurementsAllowed: A global toggle on whether or not to allow measurements. Even if all other settings would allow a measurement, if this is turned off, then no measurement is allowed. Possible values: 0, 1. Default: 0 (disallowed). FFAllowedCoordinators: The list of coordinator TLS certificate fingerprints that are allowed to start measurements. Relays check their torrc when they receive a connection from a FlashFlow coordinator to see if it's on the list. If they have no list, they check the consensus parameter. If nether exist, then no FlashFlow deployment is allowed to measure this relay. Default: empty list. FFMeasurementPeriod: A relay should expect on average, to be measured by each FlashFlow deployment once each measurement period. A relay will not allow itself to be measured more than twice by a FlashFlow deployment in any time window of this length. Relays should not change this option unless they really know what they're doing. Changing it at the relay will not change how often FlashFlow will attempt to measure the relay. Possible values are in the range [1 hour, 1 month] inclusive. Default: 1 day. FFBackgroundTrafficPercent: The maximum amount of regular non-measurement traffic a relay should handle while being measured, as a percent of total traffic (measurement + non-measurement). This parameter is a trade off between having to limit background traffic and limiting how much a relay can inflate its result by handling no background traffic but reporting that it has done so. Possible values are in the range [0, 99] inclusive. Default: 25 (a maximum inflation factor of 1.33). FFMaxMeasurementDuration: The maximum amount of time, in seconds, that is allowed to pass from the moment the relay is notified that a measurement will begin soon and the end of the measurement. If this amount of time passes, the relay shall close all measurement connections and exit its measurement mode. Note this duration includes handshake time, thus it necessarily is larger than the expected actual measurement duration. Possible values are in the range [10, 120] inclusive. Default: 45. ### 3.1.2 New Cell Types FlashFlow will introduce a new cell command MEASUREMENT. The payload of each MEASUREMENT cell consists of: ``` Measure command [1 byte] Data [varied] ``` The measure commands are: ``` 0 -- MEAS_PARAMS [forward] 1 -- MEAS_PARAMS_OK [backward] 2 -- MEAS_BG [backward] 3 -- MEAS_ERR [forward and backward] ``` Forward cells are sent from the measurer/coordinator to the relay. Backward cells are sent from the relay to the measurer/coordinator. MEAS_PARAMS and MEAS_PARAMS_OK are used during the pre-measurement stage to tell the target what to expect and for the relay to positively acknowledge the message. The target send a MEAS_BG cell once per second to report the amount of background traffic it is handling. MEAS_ERR cells are used to signal to the other party that there has been some sort of problem and that the measurement should be aborted. These measure commands are described in more detail in the next section. FlashFlow also introduces a new relay command, MEAS_ECHO. Relay celsl with this relay command are the measurement traffic. The measurer generates and encrypts them, sends them to the target, the target decrypts them, then it sends them back. A variation where the measurer skips encryption of MEAS_ECHO cells in most cases is described in Appendix A, and was found to be necessary in paper prototypes to save CPU load at the measurer. MEASUREMENT cells, on the other hand, are not encrypted (beyond the regular TLS on the connection). ### 3.1.3 Pre-Measurement Handshaking/Starting a Measurement The coordinator establishes a one-hop circuit with the target relay and sends it a MEAS_PARAMS cell. If the target is unwilling to be measured at this time or if the coordinator didn't use a TLS certificate that the target trusts, it responds with an error cell and closes the connection. Otherwise it checks that the parameters of the measurement are acceptable (e.g. the version is acceptable, the duration isn't too long, etc.). If the target is happy, it sends a MEAS_PARAMS_OK, otherwise it sends a MEAS_ERR and closes the connection. Upon learning the IP addresses of the measurers from the coordinator in the MEAS_PARAMS cell, the target whitelists their IPs in its DoS detection subsystem until the measurement ends (successfully or otherwise), at which point the whitelist is cleared. Upon receiving a MEAS_PARAMS_OK from the target, the coordinator will instruct the measurers to open their circuits (one circuit per connection) with the target. If the coordinator or any measurer receives a MEAS_ERR, it reports the error to the coordinator and considers the measurement a failure. It is also a failure if any measurer is unable to open at least half of its circuits with the target. The payload of MEAS_PARAMS cells [XXX more may need to be added]: ``` - meas_duration [2 bytes] [1, 600] - num_measurers [1 byte] [1, 10] - measurer_info [num_measurers times] ``` meas_duration is the duration, in seconds, that the actual measurement will last. num_measurers is how many link_specifier structs follow containing information on the measurers that the relay should expect. Future versions of FlashFlow and MEAS_PARAMS will use TLS certificates instead of IP addresses. [XXX probably need diff layout to allow upgrade to TLS certs instead of link_specifier structs. probably using ext-type-length-value like teor suggests] [XXX want to specify number of conns to expect from each measurer here?] MEAS_PARAMS_OK has no payload: it's just padding bytes to make the cell PAYLOAD_LEN (509) bytes long. The payload of MEAS_ECHO cells: ``` - arbitrary bytes [PAYLOAD_LEN bytes] ``` The payload of MEAS_BG cells [XXX more for extra info? like CPU usage]: ``` - second [2 byte] [1, 600] - sent_bg_bytes [4 bytes] [0, 2^32-1] - recv_bg_bytes [4 bytes] [0, 2^32-1] ``` second is the number of seconds since the measurement began. MEAS_BG cells are sent once per second from the relay to the FlashFlow coordinator. The first cell will have this set to 1, and each subsequent cell will increment it by one. sent_bg_bytes is the number of background traffic bytes sent in the last second (since the last MEAS_BG cell). recv_bg_bytes is the same but for received bytes. The payload of MEAS_ERR cells [XXX need field for more info]: ``` - err_code [1 byte] [0, 255] ``` The error code is one of: ``` [... XXX TODO ...] 255 -- OTHER ``` ### 3.1.4 Measurement Mode The relay considers the measurement to have started the moment it receives the first MEAS_ECHO cell from any measurer. At this point, the relay - Starts a repeating 1s timer on which it will report the amount of background traffic to the coordinator over the coordinator's connection. - Enters "measurement mode" and limits the amount of background traffic it handles according to the torrc option/consensus parameter. The relay decrypts and echos back all MEAS_ECHO cells it receives on measurement connections until it has reported its amount of background traffic the same number of times as there are seconds in the measurement (e.g. 30 per-second reports for a 30 second measurement). After sending the last MEAS_BG cell, the relay drops all buffered MEAS_ECHO cells, closes all measurement connections, and exits measurement mode. During the measurement the relay targets a ratio of background traffic to measurement traffic as specified by a consensus parameter/torrc option. For a given ratio r, if the relay has handled x cells of measurement traffic recently, Tor then limits itself to y = xr/(1-r) cells of non-measurement traffic this scheduling round. If x is very small, the relay will perform the calculation s.t. x is the number of cells required to produce 10 Mbit/s of measurement traffic, thus ensuring some minimum amount of background traffic is allowed. [XXX teor suggests in [4] that the number 10 Mbit/s could be derived more intelligently. E.g. based on AuthDirFastGuarantee or AuthDirGuardBWGuarantee] ## 3.2 FlashFlow Components The FF coordinator and measurer code will reside in a FlashFlow repository separate from little-t tor. There are three notable parameters for which a FF deployment must choose values. They are: - The number of sockets, s, the measurers should open, in aggregate, with the target relay. We suggest s=160 based on the FF paper. - The bandwidth multiplier, m. Given an existing capacity estimate for a relay, z, the coordinator will instruct the measurers to, in aggregate, send m*z Mbit/s to the target relay. We recommend m=2.25. - The measurement duration, d. Based on the FF paper, we recommend d=30 seconds. The rest of this section first discusses notable functions of the FlashFlow coordinator, then goes on to discuss FF measurer code that will require supporting tor code. ### 3.2.1 FlashFlow Coordinator The coordinator is responsible for scheduling measurements, aggregating results, and producing v3bw files. It needs continuous access to new consensus files, which it can obtain by running an accompanying Tor process in client mode. The coordinator has the following functions, which will be described in this section: - result aggregation. - schedule measurements. - v3bw file generation. #### 3.2.1.1 Aggregating Results Every second during a measurement, the measurers send the amount of verified measurement traffic they have received back from the relay. Additionally, the relay sends a MEAS_BG cell each second to the coordinator with amount of non-measurement background traffic it is sending and receiving. For each second's reports, the coordinator sums the measurer's reports. The coordinator takes the minimum of the relay's reported sent and received background traffic. If, when compared to the measurer's reports for this second, the relay's claimed background traffic is more than what's allowed by the background/measurement traffic ratio, then the coordinator further clamps the relay's report down. The coordinator adds this final adjusted amount of background traffic to the sum of the measurer's reports. Once the coordinator has done the above for each second in the measurement (e.g. 30 times for a 30 second measurement), the coordinator takes the median of the 30 per-second throughputs and records it as the estimated capacity of the target relay. #### 3.2.1.2 Measurement Schedule The short term implementation of measurement scheduling will be simpler than the long term one due to (1) there only being one FlashFlow deployment, and (2) there being very few relays that support being measured by FlashFlow. In fact the FF coordinator will maintain a list of the relays that have updated to support being measured and have opted in to being measured, and it will only measure them. The coordinator divides time into a series of 24 hour periods, commonly referred to as days. Each period has measurement slots that are longer than a measurement lasts (30s), say 60s, to account for pre- and post-measurement work. Thus with 60s slots there's 1,440 slots in a day. At the start of each day the coordinator considers the list of relays that have opted in to being measured. From this list of relays, it repeatedly takes the relay with the largest existing capacity estimate. It selects a random slot. If the slot has existing relays assigned to it, the coordinator makes sure there is enough additional measurer capacity to handle this relay. If so, it assigns this relay to this slot. If not, it keeps picking new random slots until one has sufficient additional measurer capacity. Relays without existing capacity estimates are assumed to have the 75th percentile capacity of the current network. If a relay is not online when it's scheduled to be measured, it doesn't get measured that day. ##### 3.2.1.2.1 Example Assume the FF deployment has 1 Gbit/s of measurer capacity. Assume the chosen multiplier m=2. Assume there are only 5 slots in a measurement period. Consider a set of relays with the following existing capacity estimates and that have opted in to being measured by FlashFlow. - 500 Mbit/s - 300 Mbit/s - 250 Mbit/s - 200 Mbit/s - 100 Mbit/s - 50 Mbit/s The coordinator takes the largest relay, 500 Mbit/s, and picks a random slot for it. It picks slot 3. The coordinator takes the next largest, 300, and randomly picks slot 2. The slots are now: ``` 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 -------|-------|-------|-------|------- | | 300 | 500 | | | | | ``` The coordinator takes the next largest, 250, and randomly picks slot 2. Slot 2 already has 600 Mbit/s of measurer capacity reserved (300*m); given just 1000 Mbit/s of total measurer capacity, there is just 400 Mbit/s of spare capacity while this relay requires 500 Mbit/s. There is not enough room in slot 2 for this relay. The coordinator picks a new random slot, 0. ``` 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 -------|-------|-------|-------|------- 250 | | 300 | 500 | | | | | ``` The next largest is 200 and the coordinator randomly picks slot 2 again (wow!). As there is just enough spare capacity, the coordinator assigns this relay to slot 2. ``` 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 -------|-------|-------|-------|------- 250 | | 300 | 500 | | | 200 | | ``` The coordinator randomly picks slot 4 for the last remaining relays, in that order. ``` 0 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 -------|-------|-------|-------|------- 250 | | 300 | 500 | 100 | | 200 | | 50 ``` #### 3.2.1.3 Generating V3BW files Every hour the FF coordinator produces a v3bw file in which it stores the latest capacity estimate for every relay it has measured in the last week. The coordinator will create this file on the host's local file system. Previously-generated v3bw files will not be deleted by the coordinator. A symbolic link at a static path will always point to the latest v3bw file. ``` $ ls -l v3bw -> v3bw.2020-03-01-05-00-00 v3bw.2020-03-01-00-00-00 v3bw.2020-03-01-01-00-00 v3bw.2020-03-01-02-00-00 v3bw.2020-03-01-03-00-00 v3bw.2020-03-01-04-00-00 v3bw.2020-03-01-05-00-00 ``` [XXX Either FF should auto-delete old ones, logrotate config should be provided, a script provided, or something to help bwauths not accidentally fill up their disk] [XXX What's the approxmiate disk usage for, say, a few years of these?] ### 3.2.2 FlashFlow Measurer The measurers take commands from the coordinator, connect to target relays with many sockets, send them traffic, and verify the received traffic is the same as what was sent. Notable new things that internal tor code will need to do on the measurer (client) side: 1. Open many TLS+TCP connections to the same relay on purpose. #### 3.2.2.1 Open many connections FlashFlow prototypes needed to "hack in" a flag in the open-a-connection-with-this-relay function call chain that indicated whether or not we wanted to force a new connection to be created. Most of Tor doesn't care if it reuses an existing connection, but FF does want to create many different connections. The cleanest way to accomplish this will be investigated. On the relay side, these measurer connections do not count towards DoS detection algorithms. ## 3.3 Security In this section we discuss the security of various aspects of FlashFlow and the tor changes it requires. ### 3.3.1 Weight Inflation Target relays are an active part of the measurement process; they know they are getting measured. While a relay cannot fake the measurement traffic, it can trivially stop transferring client background traffic for the duration of the measurement yet claim it carried some. More generally, there is no verification of the claimed amount of background traffic during the measurement. The relay can claim whatever it wants, but it will not be trusted above the ratio the FlashFlow deployment is configured to know. This places an easy to understand, firm, and (if set as we suggest) low cap on how much a relay can inflate its measured capacity. Consider a background/measurement ratio of 1/4, or 25%. Assume the relay in question has a hard limit on capacity (e.g. from its NIC) of 100 Mbit/s. The relay is supposed to use up to 25% of its capacity for background traffic and the remaining 75%+ capacity for measurement traffic. Instead the relay ceases carrying background traffic, uses all 100 Mbit/s of capacity to handle measurement traffic, and reports ~33 Mbit/s of background traffic (33/133 = ~25%). FlashFlow would trust this and consider the relay capable of 133 Mbit/s. (If the relay were to report more than ~33 Mbit/s, FlashFlow limits it to just ~33 Mbit/s.) With r=25%, FlashFlow only allows 1.33x weight inflation. Prior work shows that Torflow allows weight inflation by a factor of 89x [0] or even 177x [1]. The ratio chosen is a trade-off between impact on background traffic and security: r=50% allows a relay to double its weight but won't impact client traffic for relays with steady state throughput below 50%, while r=10% allows a very low inflation factor but will cause throttling of client traffic at far more relays. We suggest r=25% (and thus 1/(1-0.25)=1.33x inflation) for a reasonable trade-off between performance and security. It may be possible to catch relays performing this attack, especially if they literally drop all background traffic during the measurement: have the measurer (or some party on its behalf) create a regular stream through the relay and measure the throughput on the stream before/during/after the measurement. This can be explored longer term. ### 3.3.2 Incomplete Authentication The short term FlashFlow implementation has the relay set two torrc options if they would like to allow themselves to be measured: a flag allowing measurement, and the list of coordinator TLS certificate that are allowed to start a measurement. The relay drops MEAS_PARAMS cells from coordinators it does not trust, and immediately closes the connection after that. A FF coordinator cannot convince a relay to enter measurement mode unless the relay trusts its TLS certificate. A trusted coordinator specifies in the MEAS_PARAMS cell the IP addresses of the measurers the relay shall expect to connect to it shortly. The target adds the measurer IP addresses to a whitelist in the DoS connection limit system, exempting them from any configured connection limit. If a measurer is behind a NAT, an adversary behind the same NAT can DoS the relay's available sockets until the end of the measurement. The adversary could also pretend to be the measurer. Such an adversary could induce measurement failures and inaccuracies. (Note: the whitelist is cleared after the measurement is over.) # 4. FlashFlow measurement system: Medium term The medium term deployment stage begins after FlashFlow has been implemented and relays are starting to update to a version of Tor that supports it. New link- and relay-subprotocol versions will be used by the relay to indicate FF support. E.g. at the time of writing, the next relay subprotocol version is 4 [3]. We plan to host a FlashFlow deployment consisting of a FF coordinator and a single FF measurer on a single 1 Gbit/s machine. Data produced by this deployment will be made available (semi?) publicly, including both v3bw files and intermediate results. Any development changes needed during this time would go through separate proposals. # 5. FlashFlow measurement system: Long term In the long term, finishing-touch development work will be done, including adding better authentication and measurement scheduling, and experiments will be run to determine the best way to integrate FlashFlow into the Tor ecosystem. Any development changes needed during this time would go through separate proposals. ## 5.1 Authentication to Target Relay Short term deployment already had FlashFlow coordinators using TLS certificates when connecting to relays, but in the long term, directory authorities will vote on the consensus parameter for which coordinators should be allowed to perform measurements. The voting is done in the same way they currently vote on recommended tor versions. FlashFlow measurers will be updated to use TLS certificates when connecting to relays too. FlashFlow coordinators will update the contents of MEAS_PARAMS cells to contain measurer TLS certificates instead of IP addresses, and relays will update to expect this change. ## 5.2 Measurement Scheduling Short term deployment only has one FF deployment running. Long term this may no longer be the case because, for example, more than one directory authority decides to adopt it and they each want to run their own deployment. FF deployments will need to coordinate between themselves to not measure the same relay at the same time, and to handle new relays as they join during the middle of a measurement period (during the day). The measurement scheduling process shall be non-interactive. All the inputs (e.g. the shared random value, the identities of the coords, the relays currently in the network) are publicly known to (at least) the bwauths, thus each individual bwauth can calculate same multi-coord measurement schedule. The following is quoted from Section 4.3 of the FlashFlow paper. To measure all relays in the network, the BWAuths periodically determine the measurement schedule. The schedule determines when and by whom a relay should be measured. We assume that the BWAuths have sufficiently synchronized clocks to facilitate coordinating their schedules. A measurement schedule is created for each measurement period, the length p of which determines how often a relay is measured. We use a measurement period of p = 24 hours. To help avoid active denial-of-service attacks on targeted relays, the measurement schedule is randomized and known only to the BWAuths. Before the next measurement period starts, the BWAuths collectively generate a random seed (e.g. using Tor’s secure-randomness protocol). Each BWAuth can then locally determine the shared schedule using pseudorandom bits extracted from that seed. The algorithm to create the schedule considers each measurement period to be divided into a sequence of t-second measurement slots. For each old relay, slots for each BWAuth to measure it are selected uniformly at random without replacement from all slots in the period that have sufficient unallocated measurement capacity to accommodate the measurement. When a new relay appears, it is measured separately by each BWAuth in the first slots with sufficient unallocated capacity. Note that this design ensures that old relays will continue to be measured, with new relays given secondary priority in the order they arrive. [XXX Teor leaves good ideas in his tor-dev@ post [5], including a good plain language description of what the FF paper quotes says, and a recommendation on which consensus to use when making a new schedule] A problem arises when two relays are hosted on the same machine but measured at different times: they both will be measured to have the full capacity of their host. At the very least, the scheduling algo should schedule relays with the same IP to be measured at the same time. Perhaps better is measuring all relays in the same MyFamily, same ipv4/24, and/or same ipv6/48 at the same time. What specifically to do here is left for medium/long term work. ## 5.3 Experiments [XXX todo] ## 5.4 Other Changes/Investigations/Ideas - How can FlashFlow data be used in a way that doesn't lead to poor load balancing given the following items that lead to non-uniform client behavior: - Guards that high-traffic HSs choose (for 3 months at a time) - Guard vs middle flag allocation issues - New Guard nodes (Guardfraction) - Exit policies other than default/all - Directory activity - Total onion service activity - Super long-lived circuits - Add a cell that the target relay sends to the coordinator indicating its CPU and memory usage, whether it has a shortage of sockets, how much bandwidth load it has been experiencing lately, etc. Use this information to lower a relays weight, never increase. - If FlashFlow and sbws work together (as opposed to FlashFlow replacing sbws), consider logic for how much sbws can increase/decrease FF results - Coordination of multiple FlashFlow deployments: scheduling of measurements, seeding schedule with shared random value. - Other background/measurement traffic ratios. Dynamic? (known slow relay => more allowed bg traffic?) - Catching relays inflating their measured capacity by dropping background traffic. - What to do about co-located relays. Can they be detected reliably? Should we just add a torrc option a la MyFamily for co-located relays? - What is the explanation for dennis.jackson's scary graphs in this [2] ticket? Was it because of the speed test? Why? Will FlashFlow produce the same behavior? # Citations [0] F. Thill. Hidden Service Tracking Detection and Bandwidth Cheating in Tor Anonymity Network. Master’s thesis, Univ. Luxembourg, 2014. https://www.cryptolux.org/images/b/bc/Tor_Issues_Thesis_Thill_Fabrice.pdf [1] A. Johnson, R. Jansen, N. Hopper, A. Segal, and P. Syverson. PeerFlow: Secure Load Balancing in Tor. Proceedings on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PoPETs), 2017(2), April 2017. https://ohmygodel.com/publications/peerflow-popets2017.pdf [2] Mike Perry: Graph onionperf and consensus information from Rob's experiments https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/33076 [3] tor-spec.txt Section 9.3 "Relay" Subprotocol versioning https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/tree/tor-spec.txt#n2132 [4] Teor's second respose to FlashFlow proposal https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2020-April/014251.html [5] Teor's first respose to FlashFlow proposal https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2020-April/014246.html # Appendix A: Save CPU at measurer by not encrypting all MEAS_ECHO cells ## Verify echo cells A parameter will exist to tell the measurers with what frequency they shall verify that cells echoed back to them match what was sent. This parameter does not need to exist outside of the FF deployment (e.g. it doesn't need to be a consensus parameter). The parameter instructs the measurers to check 1 out of every N cells. The measurer keeps a count of how many measurement cells it has sent. It also logically splits its output stream of cells into buckets of size N. At the start of each bucket (when num_sent % N == 0), the measurer chooses a random index in the bucket. Upon sending the cell at that index (num_sent % N == chosen_index), the measurer records the cell. The measurer also counts cells that it receives. When it receives a cell at an index that was recorded, it verifies that the received cell matches the recorded sent cell. If they match, no special action is taken. If they don't match, the measurer indicates failure to the coordinator and target relay and closes all connections, ending the measurement. ### Example Consider bucket_size is 1000. For the moment ignore cell encryption. We start at idx=0 and pick an idx in [0, 1000) to record, say 640. At idx=640 we record the cell. At idx=1000 we choose a new idx in [1000, 2000) to record, say 1236. At idx=1236 we record the cell. At idx=2000 we choose a new idx in [2000, 3000). Etc. There's 2000+ cells in flight and the measurer has recorded two items: ``` - (640, contents_of_cellA) - (1236, contents_of_cellB) ``` Consider the receive side now. It counts the cells it receives. At receive idx=640, it checks the received cell matches the saved cell from before. At receive idx=1236, it again checks the received cell matches. Etc. ### Motivation A malicious relay may want to skip decryption of measurement cells to save CPU cycles and obtain a higher capacity estimate. More generally, it could generate fake measurement cells locally, ignore the measurement traffic it is receiving, and flood the measurer with more traffic that it (the measurer) is even sending. The security of echo cell verification is discussed in section 3.3.1. ### Security A smaller bucket size means more cells are checked and FF is more likely to detect a malicious target. It also means more bookkeeping overhead (CPU/RAM). An adversary that knows bucket_size and cheats on one item out of every bucket_size items will have a 1/bucket_size chance of getting caught in the first bucket. This is the worst case adversary. While cheating on just a single item per bucket yields very little advantage, cheating on more items per bucket increases the likelihood the adversary gets caught. Thus only the worst case is considered here. In general, the odds the adversary can successfully cheat in a single bucket are ``` (bucket_size-1)/bucket_size ``` Thus the odds the adversary can cheat in X consecutive buckets are ``` [(bucket_size-1)/bucket_size]^X ``` In our case, X will be highly varied: Slow relays won't see very many buckets, but fast relays will. The damage to the network a very slow relay can do by faking being only slightly faster is limited. Nonetheless, for now we motivate the selection of bucket_size with a slow relay: - Assume a very slow relay of 1 Mbit/s capacity that will cheat 1 cell in each bucket. Assume a 30 second measurement. - The relay will handle 1*30 = 30 Mbit of traffic during the measurement, or 3.75 MB, or 3.75 million bytes. - Cells are 514 bytes. Approximately (e.g. ignoring TLS) 7300 cells will be sent/recv over the course of the measurement. - A bucket_size of 50 results in about 146 buckets over the course of the 30s measurement. - Therefore, the odds of the adversary cheating successfully as (49/50)^(146), or about 5.2%. This sounds high, but a relay capable of double the bandwidth (2 Mbit/s) will have (49/50)^(2*146) or 0.2% odds of success, which is quite low. Wanting a <1% chance that a 10 Mbit/s relay can successfully cheat results in a bucket size of approximately 125: - 10*30 = 300 Mbit of traffic during 30s measurement. 37.5 million bytes. - 37,500,000 bytes / 514 bytes/cell = ~73,000 cells - bucket_size of 125 cells means 73,000 / 125 = 584 buckets - (124/125)^(584) = 0.918% chance of successfully cheating Slower relays can cheat more easily but the amount of extra weight they can obtain is insignificant in absolute terms. Faster relays are essentially unable to cheat.

3 3

When are you going to update the package?
by xpathcss＠secmail.pro 30 Sep '20

30 Sep '20

deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/buster/main/binary-armhf/Packages Package: tor Version: 0.4.2.7-1~d10.buster+1 deb.torproject.org/torproject.org/dists/buster/main/binary-amd64/Packages Package: tor Version: 0.4.4.5-1~d10.buster+1 > deb https://deb.torproject.org/torproject.org buster main Have you abandoned "armhf"?

2 1

Re: [tor-dev] [RFC] Proposal: A First Take at PoW Over Introduction Circuits
by tevador 25 Sep '20

25 Sep '20

Hi all, I was asked by George to submit my comments about the proposal and to suggest suitable RandomX parameters for this PoW scheme. > For our dynamic PoW system to work, we will need to be able to compare PoW > tokens with each other. To do so we define a function: > unsigned effort(uint8_t *token) > which takes as its argument a hash output token, and returns the number of > leading zero bits on it. This definition makes the effort exponential, i.e. the computational resources required to reach one notch higher effort increase by a factor of 2 each time. I suggest to use linear effort defined as the quotient of dividing a bitstring of 1s by the hash value: == Example A: effort(00000001100010101101) = 11111111111111111111 / 00000001100010101101 or in decimal: effort(6317) = 1048575 / 6317 = 165. This definition of effort has the advantage of directly expressing the expected number of hashes that the client had to calculate to reach the effort. With the exponential definition, we could have an equivalent linear effort of either 128 (7 leading zeroes) or 256 (8 leading zeroes), while the linear definition provides smoother classification of PoW results. > The EXT_FIELD content format is: > > POW_VERSION [1 byte] > POW_NONCE [32 bytes] > I suggest to use a 16-byte nonce value, which is more than sufficient given the target security level and has the benefit of reducing the replay cache size to half. Since we expect the seed to be valid for around 3 hours (as proposed), then even if the service receives 1 million proofs per second and each proof has an effort of 1 million, then the number of submitted nonces from clients will only reach about 10^10. With a 108-bit solution space (subtracting 20 bits as the search space per client), the probability that two clients accidentally submit the same nonce is roughly 10^-13 (see [REF_BIRTHDAY]). Additionally, I suggest to add the client's effort for convenience: The updated EXT_FIELD content format would be: POW_VERSION [1 byte] POW_EFFORT [4 bytes] POW_NONCE [16 bytes] Including the effort has 2 benefits: 1. In case the Intro Priority Queue is full, the service doesn't need to waste time verifying PoW solutions that have effort lower than the last element in the queue. While an attacker can always lie about the actual effort of their nonce value, I think this field can still save some CPU cycles when the service is under heavy load. 2. The service can conveniently verify the reported effort with the following inequality: POW_EFFORT * pow_function(POW_NONCE, SEED) <= MAX_RESULT where MAX_RESULT is the highest possible output from the pow_function. In the case of Example A, that would be: 165 * 6317 = 1042305 <= 1048576 > Similar to how our cell scheduler works, the onion service subsystem will > poll the priority queue every 100ms tick and process the first 20 cells from > the priority queue (if they exist). The service will perform the rendezvous > and the rest of the onion service protocol as normal. I suggest to use a different selection method rather than always taking the first 20 requests. Selecting cells from the front of the queue actually minimizes the effort that an attacker needs to expend to completely block access to the service. The attacker can always submit the minimum effort required to occupy the first 20 slots in each 100 ms window. This can be done by submitting just 200 requests per second and observing how many circuits are successfully open and adjusting the effort until no other request can go through. This is the "Total overwhelm strategy" described in § 5.1.1. See the following examples to show how selecting the first N cells from the queue is unfair. I will use N = 4 for clarity. E denotes some value of effort. == Example B: ATTACKER LEGITIMATE CLIENTS ___________ _________ ____________ ______________ / \ / \ +--------+--------+--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ | 2E | 2E | 2E | 2E | E | E | E | E | E | E | E | E | +--------+--------+--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ ^ ^ ^ ^ selected selected selected selected Here both the attacker and the legitimate clients have expended a combined effort of 8E. All of the attacker's cells get selected, while none of the other clients get through. Instead, I suggest to use Stochastic universal sampling [REF_SUS], where the probability that a cell gets selected is proportional to its effort. == Example C: Here the total effort in the queue is 16E, so we first select a random value in the interval [0, 4E) and then select 4 evenly spaced cells: ATTACKER LEGITIMATE CLIENTS ___________ _________ ____________ ______________ / \ / \ +--------+--------+--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ | 2E | 2E | 2E | 2E | E | E | E | E | E | E | E | E | +--------+--------+--------+--------+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+----+ ^ ^ ^ ^ selected selected selected selected In this case, 2 cells are selected from each group, which is fairer considering that each group expended the same effort. == Example D: Now if the attacker wanted to block access to all legitimate clients, they would need to at least quadruple their total PoW effort (and there would still be a chance that a legitimate client gets selected from the end of the queue): ATTACKER LEGITIMATE CLIENTS __________________________ ______________________ ______________ / \ / \ +--------------+--------------+---------------+--------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 8E | 8E | 8E | 8E |E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E| +--------------+--------------+--------------+---------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^ ^ ^ ^ selected selected selected selected Note: With linear effort, the original selection method becomes even worse because the attacker can occupy the front of the queue with an effort of just E+1 per cell rather than 2E. In some cases, Stochastic universal sampling can select a single element multiple times, which is not a problem for genetic algorithms, but we want to avoid it. I suggest to restart the selection algorithm from the beginning of the next cell in those cases and shorten the sampling interval according to the remaining portion of the queue. See the following example. == Example E: +---------------+-------------+--------------+------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ | 16E | 8E | 6E |E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E|E| +---------------+-------------+--------------+------------+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+ ^ ^ ^ ^ selected selected selected selected > In particular, the service starts with a default suggested-effort value of 15. > > Everytime the service handles an introduction request from the priority queue > in [HANDLE_QUEUE], the service compares the request's effort to the current > suggested-effort value. If the new request's effort is lower than the > suggested-effort, set the suggested-effort equal to the effort of the new > request. > > Everytime the service trims the priority queue in [HANDLE_QUEUE], the service > compares the request at the trim point against the current suggested-effort > value. If the trimmed request's effort is higher than the suggested-effort, > set the suggested-effort equal to the effort of the new request. I think the default suggested-effort is a bit too high. Assuming each attempt takes around 1 ms to calculate, the client would need, on average, 2^15 ms = 33 seconds to find a solution using 1 CPU core. I suggest to specify a minimum effort instead. Requests with effort < MIN_EFFORT and requests without the PROOF_OF_WORK extension would be treated as having effort = 1 for the purposes of the sampling algorithm. Secondly, the proposed method of calculating the suggested-effort is susceptible to gaming by attackers. Since the service can only update the value in the directory once every 'hs-pow-desc-upload-rate-limit' seconds, they could stop the attack for a little while just before the directory gets updated, which would cause the suggested-effort value to be too low despite an ongoing attack. I suggest to take the median effort of the selected cells during each 100 ms window. For the examples above that would be: Example C: 1.5E Example D: 8E Example E: 7E Then I would take the median of these values over the directory update period. > > 5. Attacker strategies > Additional attacks: 5.1.2 PoW Spam Attack The attacker may try to spam many requests with random values of POW_NONCE, requiring the service to waste cycles verifying the invalid proofs. No such request would make it into the Intro Queue, but it may still be a viable DoS strategy depending on proof verification time and the number of intro requests that can be practically delivered through the network. 5.1.3 Precomputed PoW attack The attacker may precompute many valid PoW nonces and submit them all at once before the current seed expires, overwhelming the service temporarily even using a single computer. > 4.2. Seed expiration issues > > As mentioned in [DESC_POW], the expiration timestamp on the PoW seed can > cause issues with clock skewed clients. Furthermore, even not clock skewed > clients can encounter TOCTOU-style race conditions here. > > The client descriptor refetch logic of [CLIENT_TIMEOUT] should take care of > such seed-expiration issues, since the client will refetch the descriptor. > I suggest to use 2 concurrent seeds, i.e. to accept PoW both from the current and the last seed epoch. We use this approach in Monero. It would however require adding the seed value into the proof of work extension field and also double the memory requirements for verification with RandomX. > The proposal suggests argon2, and Mike has been looking at Randomx. However, > after further consideration and speaking with some people (props to Alex > Biryukov), it seems like those two functions are not well fitted for this > purpose, since they are memory-hard both for the client and the service. And > since we are trying to minimize the verification overhead, so that the > service can do hundreds of verifications per second, they don't seem like > good fits. Asymmetric function like Equihash, Cuckoo cycle [REF_CUCKOO] and MTP have the advantage of being very fast to verify, but they run much faster on GPUs and specialized hardware, so I don't think they are particularly suitable for this purpose. When we designed RandomX to be used as the PoW algorithm by Monero, we selected the parameters very conservatively to maximize the ASIC resistance of the algorithm. That's because it is very difficult to change the PoW algorithm once it's deployed. TOR is not limited by this, so we can be much more aggressive when configuring RandomX. I suggest to use a configuration that gives the fastest possible verification time without completely breaking the algorithm. In particular, the following parameters should be set differently from Monero: RANDOMX_ARGON_SALT = "RandomX-TOR-v1" The unique RandomX salt means we do not need to use a separate salt as PoW input as specified in § 3.2. RANDOMX_ARGON_ITERATIONS = 1 RANDOMX_CACHE_ACCESSES = 4 RANDOMX_DATASET_BASE_SIZE = 1073741824 RANDOMX_DATASET_EXTRA_SIZE = 16777216 These 4 changes reduce the RandomX Dataset size to ~1 GiB, which allows the number of iteration to be reduced from 8 to 4. The combined effect of this is that Dataset initialization becomes 4 times faster, which is needed due to more frequent updates of the seed (Monero updates once per ~3 days). RANDOMX_PROGRAM_COUNT = 2 RANDOMX_SCRATCHPAD_L3 = 1048576 Additionally, reducing the number of programs from 8 to 2 makes the hash calculation about 4 times faster, while still providing resistance against program filtering strategies (see [REF_RANDOMX_PROGRAMS]). Since there are 4 times fewer writes, we also have to reduce the scratchpad size. I suggest to use a 1 MiB scratchpad size as a compromise between scratchpad write density and memory hardness. Most x86 CPUs will perform roughly the same with a 512 KiB and 1024 KiB scratchpad, while the larger size provides higher resistance against specialized hardware, at the cost of possible time-memory tradeoffs (see [REF_RANDOMX_TMTO] for details). Lastly, we reduce the output of RandomX to just 8 bytes: RANDOMX_HASH_SIZE = 8 64-bit preimage security is more than sufficient for proof-of-work and it allows the result to be treated as a little-endian encoded unsigned integer for easy effort calculation. RandomX would be used as follows: The service will select a 32-byte POW_SEED and initialize the cache and the dataset: randomx_init_cache(myCache, POW_SEED, 32); randomx_init_dataset(myDataset, myCache, 0, randomx_dataset_item_count()); randomx_vm *myMachine = randomx_create_vm(flags, NULL, myDataset); Then in order to validate a PoW token, we could use something like this: int validateProof(uint32_t pow_effort, void* pow_nonce) { uint64_t result; randomx_calculate_hash(myMachine, pow_nonce, 16, &result); if (mulh(pow_effort, result) == 0) { return 1; } return 0; } I suggest to set MIN_EFFORT = 10000, which takes about 1 second on my laptop. Requests with pow_effort < MIN_EFFORT would not be validated. I have collected some performance figures for the fast mode with the above RandomX configuration (~1 GiB of memory is required): H/s = hashes per second == CPUs: Intel Core i3-3220 - 1 thread 700 H/s - 3 threads 1400 H/s Intel Xeon (dual core VPS, Sandy Bridge, unknown model) - 1 thread 2000 H/s - 2 threads 4000 H/s Intel Core i5-2500K (stock) - 1 thread 2200 H/s - 4 threads 8200 H/s Intel Core i7-8550U (laptop) - 1 thread 2700 H/s - 8 threads 10000 H/s Intel Core i7-9850H (laptop) - 1 thread 3100 H/s - 12 threads 16000 H/s AMD Ryzen 1700 @ 3300MHz - 1 thread 2300 H/s - 16 threads 23800 H/s AMD Ryzen 3700X @ 3300MHz - 1 thread 2500 H/s - 16 threads 27500 H/s AMD Epyc 7702P - 1 thread 2100 H/s - 128 threads 139000 H/s == GPUs: NVIDIA GeForce GTX 1660 Ti (credits to SChernykh, see [REF_RANDOMX_CUDA]) - 3072 intensity 2600 H/s According to the above results, the time to verify a single hash is around 400-500 μs. A mid-range GPU has a similar performance as a single CPU core. Most CPUs made since 2011 have similar per-core performance except of low-end CPUs without hardware AES support. References: [REF_BIRTHDAY]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_attack#Mathematics [REF_SUS]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stochastic_universal_sampling [REF_CUCKOO]: https://github.com/tromp/cuckoo [REF_RANDOMX_PROGRAMS]: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/blob/master/doc/design.md#12-the-easy-pr… [REF_RANDOMX_TMTO]: https://github.com/tevador/RandomX/issues/65 [REF_RANDOMX_CUDA]: https://github.com/SChernykh/RandomX_CUDA

7 21

new home for trac/CoreTorReleases?
by nusenu 17 Sep '20

17 Sep '20

Hi, in the past https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/wiki/org/teams/NetworkTeam/CoreTor… used to be the canonical place for tor EoL information. Since Trac is no longer used: Is there a new home for this kind of information? @Nick: In the past, before rejecting eol versions you asked about the current state on the tor network, the following new table will now provide you with a list of operators (more precisely ContactInfos) by clicking on the CW column you can get it sorted by consensus weight to find the biggest affected operators running eol releases: https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetStats/#tor-version-distribution-relays https://nusenu.github.io/OrNetStats/#end-of-life-relays-share kind regards, nusenu

2 2

proposal for "tor-relay" well-known URI
by nusenu 17 Sep '20

17 Sep '20

Hi, I'm submitting this as a proposal according to: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/blob/master/proposals/001-process.txt I made a PR request for you: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/pull/129/files kind regards, nusenu

3 3

CAPTCHA Monitoring Project Final Report
by Barkin Simsek 07 Sep '20

07 Sep '20

Hi everyone, The end of the Google Summer of Code period has arrived, and you can find my GSoC final report for the CAPTCHA Monitoring project here [1]. This was my first time working with an active open source community and I enjoyed it a lot! The feedback you have provided made the experience worthwhile and exciting. I couldn't finish implementing all of the features I planned, so I will be around and I plan to stay active. I want to thank my mentors GeKo & arma and everyone who helped me with the project! Best, Barkin [1] https://gitlab.torproject.org/woswos/CAPTCHA-Monitor/-/wikis/GSoC-2020

3 2

Re: [tor-dev] Using linux perf tool to look at sleep times
by Jim Newsome 31 Aug '20

31 Aug '20

cc tor-dev for real this time :) On 8/31/20 17:23, Jim Newsome wrote: > Hi David, (cc tor-dev in case others are interested or know anything > about it) > > I'm told you're the local expert on the linux perf tool :). I'm using it > to profile sleep times in Shadow, using the instructions here: > https://perf.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Tutorial#Profiling_sleep_times > > perf unfortunately splits the data both by what the scheduler is > switching from (which I want) and what it's switching to (which I > don't). e.g. I have two separate lines: > > + 13.46% 13.46% prev_comm=shadow prev_pid=24996 prev_prio=120 > prev_state=S ==> next_comm=swapper/3 next_pid=0 next_prio=120 > + 11.57% 11.57% prev_comm=shadow prev_pid=24996 prev_prio=120 > prev_state=S ==> next_comm=swapper/2 next_pid=0 next_prio=120 > > I'd rather these were merged into a single "prev_comm=shadow > prev_pid=24996 prev_prio=120 prev_state=S" bucket. > > Any ideas? >

1 0

Store Salmon-related information in Tor Browser?
by Philipp Winter 20 Aug '20

20 Aug '20

(Sending this email again because I failed to copy tor-dev@.) On Mon, Aug 17, 2020 at 12:16:08PM -0700, Philipp Winter wrote: > Hi Matt, > > We recently started experimenting with the Salmon social bridge > distributor: > https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/anti-censorship/bridgedb/-/issues/31873 > > We are now exploring the possibility of storing some Salmon-related data > on a user's computer and are wondering what our options are. The data > we're talking about is a lightweight, signed, and encrypted blurb that > contains a user's social graph, proxies, and registration ID. > > One option to store this data is Tor's data directory but that doesn't > seem ideal because Salmon isn't a PT and technically has nothing to do > with Tor. Is Tor Browser an option here? Or does the "disk avoidance" > design goal mean that we don't get to store anything at all? A last > resort option would be to simply hand the blurb to the user and ask them > to store it somewhere but we would like to find a more usable way to > handle this. > > Thanks, > Philipp

2 1