- tor-dev - lists.torproject.org

torsocks configure bug (uClibc, maybe other nonstandard libcs)
by akater 14 Nov '19

14 Nov '19

In torsocks' configure.ac, libc_name is determined by means of ldd /usr/bin/yes which is then grepped for libc. On a uClibc system I use, ldd /usr/bin/yes yields two entries, namely libc.so.0 => ... ld64-uClibc.so.0 => ... The resulting string begins with quotation mark, ends with quotation mark and contains newline character. At some point during the configuration process (I have not figured out when exactly), the aforementioned string is trimmed erroneously. In my case, the first line is left out and the second one is discarded. The remaining chunk, with the opening quotation mark but without the closing one, ends up in another configuration file, producing a line like SOME_VARIABLE="libc.so.0 without the closing quotation mark. Build cannot proceed from there. The libc determination process thus needs to be fixed. My hotfix was to change grep 'libc\.' to grep '\slibc\.' but I can't suggest the proper solution as I'm not experienced with shell scripts. I will perform a test if provided with (a link to) a relevant standalone patch for torsocks-2.2.0 or torsocks-2.3.0.

2 1

Acceptable clock skew in tor 0.4.1
by intrigeri 14 Nov '19

14 Nov '19

Hi, recently, tor has become more tolerant to skewed system clocks; great, thanks! At Tails, we would like to take advantage of these improvements in order to remove as much as we can of our not-quite-safe clock fixing code. Our testing suggests that: - A ±24h clock skew is now acceptable in most cases¹: tor bootstraps successfully. - While with a ±48h clock skew, tor fails to bootstrap. Could someone on the network team please confirm that these empirical results match what the code is currently supposed to do? Thanks in advance! [1] In some corner cases I see weird behavior (#32438). And obfs4proxy is stricter than that, which I should report on Trac. Cheers, -- intrigeri

3 2

[paper] Breaking and (Partially) Fixing Provably Secure Onion Routing
by Eugen Leitl 05 Nov '19

05 Nov '19

https://arxiv.org/abs/1910.13772 Breaking and (Partially) Fixing Provably Secure Onion Routing Christiane Kuhn, Martin Beck, Thorsten Strufe (Submitted on 30 Oct 2019) After several years of research on onion routing, Camenisch and Lysyanskaya, in an attempt at rigorous analysis, defined an ideal functionality in the universal composability model, together with properties that protocols have to meet to achieve provable security. A whole family of systems based their security proofs on this work. However, analyzing HORNET and Sphinx, two instances from this family, we show that this proof strategy is broken. We discover a previously unknown vulnerability that breaks anonymity completely, and explain a known one. Both should not exist if privacy is proven correctly. In this work, we analyze and fix the proof strategy used for this family of systems. After proving the efficacy of the ideal functionality, we show how the original properties are flawed and suggest improved, effective properties in their place. Finally, we discover another common mistake in the proofs. We demonstrate how to avoid it by showing our improved properties for one protocol, thus partially fixing the family of provably secure onion routing protocols. Subjects: Cryptography and Security (cs.CR) Cite as: arXiv:1910.13772 [cs.CR] (or arXiv:1910.13772v1 [cs.CR] for this version)

1 0

Onion Service Intro Point Retry Behavior
by David Goulet 01 Nov '19

01 Nov '19

Greetings everyone, After some discussions between arma, mikeperry, asn and I, it is time for a famous tor-dev@ email thread to try to get to a consensus if need be. In the past weeks, a set of HSv3 reachability issues have been found regarding *service* intro points (IP): - hs-v3: Service can keep unused intro points in its list https://bugs.torproject.org/31561 - hs-v3: Service can pick more than HiddenServiceNumIntroductionPoints intro points https://bugs.torproject.org/31548 - hs-v3: Stop using ip->circuit_established flag https://bugs.torproject.org/32094 - hs-v3: Client can re-pick bad intro points https://bugs.torproject.org/31541 - hs-v3: Service circuit retry limit should not close a valid circuit https://bugs.torproject.org/31652 Long story short, couple weeks ago we've almost merged a new behavior on the service side with #31561 that would have ditch an intro point if its circuit would time out instead of retrying it. (Today, a service always retry their intro point up to 3 times on any type of circuit failure.) And here comes the core of the discussion of this thread: Retrying intro point on failure or simply ditch it on failure and pick a new one? Some 7 years ago, this ticket was created and thus we implemented roughly 4 years ago a mechanism that makes a service retry to establish the intro point circuit up to 3 times when it collapses (except for very very specific cases for which we wouldn't): https://bugs.torproject.org/8239 HSv3 tried to be on feature parity there with v2 up until now that the above bugs have been mostly fixed. That being all said, regarding the retry feature, there are pros and cons. I'll try to organize them below based on many adhoc discussions in the past and what I can get from all the tickets up to this day (there could be more! this is just what I could recall and find in the tickets): == Pros == The primary original argument for retrying is based on the mobile use case. If a .onion is running on a cellphone and the network happens to be bad all the sudden, the service is better off to re-establish the intro circuits which would make the retry attempts of the client to finally succeed after a bit instead of having to re-fetch a descriptor and go to the new intro points. Thus, in theory, it is mostly a reachability argument. One question that can arise from this is: Will the client be able to reconnect using the old intro points by the time the service re-established? In other words, is the retry behavior of the *client* allows enough time for the service to stabilize for the mobile use case? I'm curious to learn from people with experience with this! == Cons == Recently, mikeperry raised concerns about the retry behavior all together and proposed to simply ditch each time the intro point instead of retrying. (@Mike, I do invite you to comment here as you mentionned many times rationales for this but I don't have enough IRC backlog :S). == Pros _and_ Cons at the same time == There is a possible Guard discovery attack argument against retrying. But it is nuanced on what exactly constitute a failure and when should it retry vs ditching. Quote from https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/8239#comment:6 FWIW, it's also worth mentioning that making HSes more stubborn towards old IPs might also allow guard discovery attacks from the IP. That is the IP kills incoming circuits, till a compromised middle node is selected, and since the HS is stubborn it will keep on establishing new circuits. This was mentioned by waldo here: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2014-May/006843.html ... which is where the "what is the failure" is important as arma's mentions in the same ticket: That's why you should only stick to your intro point when it's your network that failed (that is, the connection between you and your guard), not the intro circuit. (This is what I meant in the body of the bug in the 'main tricky point' sentence.) We had this discussion before in Tor many times on "how to detect network failures" vs "circuit failures". In other words, if the link to your Guard fails, that would be enough to consider a network failure and thus retry the intro point. But if the circuit collapses due to let say a DESTROY or TRUNCATED cell, then it could be the IP closing it for the purpose of an attack and thus you would select a new intro point. But, it could also be that the middle node died... That one has many false positive. Soooooo, to repeat what I first said at the beginning, today an HSv3 will _always_ retry up to 3 times regardless of the reason why the circuit collapsed. Should that behavior get more refined with the network failed vs circuit close argument? Should we stop at once retrying? Should we change the retry behavior client side to better match the latency of the mobile use case? Whatever we decide, most importantly, we need to document the *why* of this retry/ditch behavior and thus this email thread is I hope a good start to keep a record of the discussions/arguments. Cheers! David -- 5qZaRu0+AqSNqiaTmTpzcIEztqeYQIq7AAfzKdg/2cs=

2 1

New python Tor client implementation
by James Brown 24 Oct '19

24 Oct '19

4 4

Comparing Proposals 295 and 308
by Tomer Ashur 23 Oct '19

23 Oct '19

Dear all, Some time ago I sent to this mailing list a proposal for using the ADL construction to solve the crypto tagging attack and it was registered as Proposal 295. Then, about a month ago Jean Paul Degabriele sent another proposal aiming for the same, which was registered as Proposal 308. We’ve now had the chance to compare both proposals and we provide our observations below. But before we discuss the pros and cons of each proposal, I’d like to re-state our goal for Proposal 295. Our aim was to build something that: 1. does not lose any security guarantees that are already in place; 2. prevents successful crypto-tagging; and 3. does not introduce new weaknesses. We *did not* consider advanced security goals such as forward secrecy and/or non-repudiation which was also mentioned earlier on this mailing list. In achieving these goals, the two proposals are almost the same: for the encryption part, both use layered encryption where the nonce is tweaked with a digest of the ciphertext, and sent in encrypted form to the next node as part of the ciphertext. The only meaningful difference I could find is that instead of using the output of the universal hash function (i.e., GHASH) as a running digest as is done in Proposal 295, Proposal 308 uses the encrypted nonce. Jean Paul made the correct observation that our security proof did not account for key-dependent input, but we believe that this can be resolved by rewriting the proof. In either case, this is a subtlety and common ground can be found. On a high level, both proposals use the same mechanism to avoid crypto-tagging. Where the proposals differ is in the authentication part. Proposal 295 makes a functional separation between the encryption part and the authentication part, cf. Lines 150-152 (authentication) and Lines 156-160 (layered encryption). Conversely, Proposal 308 does not offer such separation, and the authentication and encryption of the last node are done in a single pass (cf. Lines 227-230 and Lines 244-252). This comes with what we think are two highly unwanted side effects defeating the purpose of using the ADL construction to begin with: the authentication of the last node depends solely on the proper execution of the IF statement on Line 266. As a result, if this line is skipped for some reason (e.g., because an adversary corrupted the last node, a bug, or as a result of over-optimization), modified messages may leave the network. Moreover, the last layer is malleable which means that a difference introduced to the ciphertext entering the last node will be preserved through the final decryption (given that the IF statement on Line 266 is skipped). This is because the decryption nonce does not depend on the authentication process (in the lingo of Proposal 308 this is called a “dynamic nonce”). Comparing this to Proposal 295 we see that the same cannot happen. Any change introduced at any point (including the ciphertext entering the last node) will completely destroy the payload in an irrecoverable way (the same happens in the “static layers” of Proposal 308; only the dynamic layer is malleable). For the record, a corollary of all of this is that if Sf_I is leaked (e.g., via a side channel in the generation process of Nf_I that is used by the IF statement), the adversary now has the secret it needs to decrypt the ciphertext regardless of the authentication process. Not being able to do this is exactly what’s captured by the RUP property used in Proposal 295 in which the only way to obtain N_4 (the counterpart of Proposal 308’s Nf_I) is via a successful digest of an unmodified ciphertext. The place where Proposal 308 nicely extends over Proposal 295 is in the forward secrecy domain. In an email to this mailing list we conjectured that if certain changes are made to Proposal 295 it will provide forward secrecy in addition to its crypto-tagging resistance. Jean Paul suggested an attack against this conjecture, but I find that the attack is not very convincing. Indeed, once the keys are leaked, the last message can be recovered. But I don’t think that there’s anything surprising in the fact that the set of keys that would have normally decrypted a message will also do so if leaked to an adversary. A more reasonable definition for forward secrecy would be that no message can be decrypted *after* the state (including ephemeral secrets) that was used to generate this message was replaced. Admittedly, Proposal 308 replaces this state earlier than Proposal 295 (immediately after processing the message vs. after processing the next message), which may be desirable, but is anyway not disastrous. That being said, this discussion is theoretic in nature since of the two proposals, only Proposal 308 offers an actual mechanism. For Proposal 295 we only offer a conjecture. We also tend to somewhat agree that frequent re-keying is a better way to achieve forward secrecy. Regardless of which is the better way, both can be built on top of the encryption mechanism we offered in Proposal 295 whose goal is to resist crypto-tagging. In the interest of moving forward we propose to implement Proposal 295 as suggested or something close to it (e.g., using POLYVAL) to counter crypto-tagging, then discuss alternatives to achieving forward secrecy and add those on top of the ADL construction via Proposal 308. A few side notes: 1. Proposal 308 argues that POLYVAL is more suited than GHASH to our this use-case. This is an implementation issue. GHASH or POLYVAL or any other collision resistant hash function are all the same to us. 2. I'm pretty sure there's a typo on Line 250 in Proposal 308 and that the text should be Y_I = Tf_{I+1} ^ X_I. Otherwise, I can't see how the protocol decrypts on Line 285. 3. The lengths in Section 2.2 (marked for revision) are given in bytes, but then in Section 2.3 they are treated as bits. 4. Line 230 has unbalanced parenthesis. Tomer

2 1

Optimistic SOCKS Data
by Tom Ritter 15 Oct '19

15 Oct '19

The attached is a draft proposal for allowing tor to lie to an application about the SOCKS connection enabling it to send data optimistically. It's going to need some fleshing out in ways I am not familiar with, but I wanted to get something out to start as we think that this is probably the best path forward for bringing back Tor Browser's optimistic SOCKS behavior. -tom

6 11

maint-0.4.2 is now a separate branch; master is now 0.4.3.x
by Nick Mathewson 11 Oct '19

11 Oct '19

Hi! If you're writing a patch that needs to go into Tor 0.4.2.x, please base it on the new "maint-0.4.2" branch. The "master" branch is now for developing the new and exciting Tor 0.4.3.x. If you use git-pull-all.sh, git-push-all.sh, or git-merge-forward.sh, please be sure to update to the latest versions in the master branch; they know about the maint-0.4.2 and release-0.4.2 branches. cheers, -- Nick

1 0

Exposing onion service errors to Tor Browser
by George Kadianakis 02 Oct '19

02 Oct '19

Hello list, we've recently been thinking about how to expose onion-service-related errors to Tor Browser so that we can give more useful error pages to users. We currently return "Unable to connect" error pages for any kind of onion service error, and I think we can do better. This is a thread to think about the errors we want to expose, how that should look like, and what options we should give to the users when it happens. Relevant master tickets are #30022, #30025 and #30000. We decided (in #14389) that Tor will export these errors through the SOCKS port, and the relevant spec is proposal 304 [0]. As part of #30090 antonela started making a table of potential errors. I'm gonna use that in this thread and also add a few more. Let's go: = Client-level errors = These are errors on the user side of things: === 1) Typo error on address === This can be detected by Tor using the checksum or if the address is too big or too small. TODO: We will need to add a new error code to prop304. Not sure if the error code should distinguish between checksum fail or length fail. There is no recovery here since the address is busted. The user needs to find the right one. === 2) Missing Client Authorization === This is prop304's 'F4' error (see #30382), and it means that we can't decrypt the descriptor because it requires client auth, but we don't have it configured. The recovery here is the whole point of #30237 where we make a dialog for the user to insert their client auth credentials. === 3) Wrong Client Authorization === This is prop304's 'F5' error, and it means that there client auth credentials configured for this onion are wrong. The user recovery here is unclear but it might be that they need to change their client auth credentials. IMO, we should not try to make the perfect UX here, and we should just go with something super simple. = Service-level errors = These are errors on the onion service side: === 4) Service Descriptor Can Not be Found === This is prop304's 'F0' error, and it means that we could not find the descriptor of the service on the directory servers. This means that the service is not up right now (or, more unlikely, that some bug has happened somewhere). The user recovery here is unclear. The user can try to reconnect in case the service got up in the meanwhile, but this is not so likely in a small period of time. Perhaps we can give the user the option to reconnect every 10 seconds or so? Does this make sense from a UX PoV? Again this equivalent to a "Remote host is down" error and we should use it as such. = Network-level errors = These are errors caused by the network (directory servers, intro points, rendezvous points) or even the service itself. It's kinda unclear given all the hops involved. === 5) Onion Service Descriptor Is Invalid === This is prop304's 'F1' error and it means that we got a descriptor back from the directory but it's corrupted. This is very unlikely to happen since directory servers do not keep corrupted descriptors, so it usually means that some bug happened somewhere (or that the directory is bad or confused). In terms of recovery and error page, this is kinda an "Oops. Internal error." situation where this is rare and weird and hence we don't know what's the best recovery option. We can give the option to reconnect but it's likely not gonna help much. Again this should never really appear, so let's not stress too much over it. === 6) Onion Service Introduction Failed === This is prop304's 'F2' error and it means that for some reason the introduction did not complete. This could be because the onion service is not up anymore, or it could be because the network is screwed in some way (e.g. the service is DoSed). The recovery here might be some 'reconnect' button which could be helpful in case of a DoS situation, but it would not help much if the service is not up anymore. === 7) Onion Service Rendezvous Failed === This is prop304's 'F3' error and it means that the rendezvous did not complete. This usually means that the service is having a bad time, and is either DoSed or it generally cannot cope. The recovery again here is some 'reconnect' button, since if we did the introduction successfuly, the service is up, and reconnecting might work at some point. This one and (6) are very related and perhaps they can be handlded identically, since exposing terms like "intro" and "rend" to users will not be nice. Still we might want to expose a technical error value somewhere for debugging purposes when users come to us. ======================================================================= I think the above set of errors will satisfy all our needs. In particular: - #30022 (typos ticket) needs error (1) from above. - #30025 (client errors ticket) needs errors (4), (5), (6), (7) from above. - #30000 (client auth) needs errors (2) and (3) from above. In terms of error page, I'm not sure how it should look like. Perhaps along with the error description and the recovery path, we should provide some education about onion services to the users? In terms of unsafe paths, I don't see any of these errors being dangerous in terms of causing security issues if you attempt to reconnect or anything. The Tor protocol takes care of this in the layer below. The worst thing you can do is slightly damage the network from too many reconnects, but I think that's OK since people who use the TB are legitimate users and not DoS attackers. === Hope this was useful! [0]: https://github.com/torproject/torspec/blob/master/proposals/304-socks5-exte…

3 3

(no subject)
by vignesh kannan 26 Sep '19

26 Sep '19

Please sent me a video that how to get dark web please

3 3