Security implications of disabling onion key rotation?
Linus Nordberg and I have had a paper accepted to FOCI 2023 on the special pluggable transports configuration used on the Snowflake bridges. That design was first hashed out on this mailing list last year. https://forum.torproject.net/t/tor-relays-how-to-reduce-tor-cpu-load-on-a-si... https://github.com/net4people/bbs/issues/103 https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/anti-censorship/team/-/wikis/Survival%20Gu... There is a draft of the paper here: https://www.bamsoftware.com/papers/pt-bridge-hiperf/pt-bridge-hiperf.2023030... https://www.bamsoftware.com/papers/pt-bridge-hiperf/pt-bridge-hiperf.2023030... A question that more than one reviewer asked is, what are the security implications of disabling onion key rotation as we do? (Section 3.2 in the draft.) It's a good question and one we'd like to address in the final draft. What are the risks of not rotating onion keys? My understanding is that rotation is meant to enhance forward security; i.e., limit how far back in time past recorded connections can be attacked in the case of key compromise. https://spec.torproject.org/tor-design Section 4 says: Short-term keys are rotated periodically and independently, to limit the impact of key compromise. Do the considerations differ when using ntor keys versus TAP keys?
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:54 PM David Fifield <david@bamsoftware.com> wrote: [...]
What are the risks of not rotating onion keys? My understanding is that rotation is meant to enhance forward security; i.e., limit how far back in time past recorded connections can be attacked in the case of key compromise. https://spec.torproject.org/tor-design Section 4 says: Short-term keys are rotated periodically and independently, to limit the impact of key compromise.
This is an interesting question! So, compromising an onion key shouldn't be enough on its own to break forward secrecy. The circuit extension handshakes use an additional set of ephemeral keys as part of the negotiation process, which are discarded immediately after the handshake. (This is the diffie-hellman keys in TAP, and the x/X y/Y keypairs in ntor.) Assuming that this is done properly, and all the cryptographic assumptions hold, these keys alone should make it impossible to decrypt anything after the session keys are discarded. The purpose of the onion key is, rather, to make it impossible for somebody else to impersonate the target relay. If somebody steals your onion key, and they have their own relay R, then they can use your onion key to impersonate you whenever somebody tries to extend a circuit from R to you. Onion key rotation limits the time range in which this kind of attack is useful: it will only work for as long as the onion key is listed in a live directory. (Now, any attacker who can steal your onion key can probably also steal your identity key too, if you don't keep that offline, and use it to impersonate you for even longer. The advantage of using a stolen onion key is that it's much harder to detect; all the attacks I can think of that use a stolen identity key involve, whereas the onion-key-theft attack occurs when you are already in a perfect position to be a MITM.)
Do the considerations differ when using ntor keys versus TAP keys?
The argument above is the same with TAP and ntor, I'd say, except for the fact that TAP just isn't that secure under modern assumptions: it depends on RSA-1024 and DH-1024, both of which are believed to breakable if you have a large budget or a lot of stolen computers or a lot of time. Assuming that we care about these attacks, they _would_ make rotating TAP keys more important: the longer any TAP onion keys are in use, the more cost-effective it would be for an attacker to factor them... ...but there's another factor that makes TAP keys less important: they simply shouldn't be used for anything modern in today's Tor. The last thing that required the TAP handshake was some facets of the v2 onion service protocol, and that's now been fully deprecated. So I wouldn't personally worry about TAP too much. hoping this helps and I haven't screwed up my analysis, -- Nick
Thanks Nick! I endorse Nick's response, with two additions: On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:07:17AM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
Onion key rotation limits the time range in which this kind of attack is useful: it will only work for as long as the onion key is listed in a live directory.
For bridges it is a little bit different, because bridges don't have an onion key listed in any public (consensus style) directory document that clients get. Rather, the client connects to the bridge directly and fetches a full timestamped descriptor from the bridge, which is signed by the bridge's identity key, and which includes the onion key that the client should use. So if you have broken an old (rotated) onion key for a bridge, the proper attack involves MITMing the connection to the bridge, breaking or stealing the bridge's identity key too, and crafting a new descriptor that lists the old onion key. Whereas if the bridge never rotates the onion key, then you would be able to successfully attack the CREATE cell that the client sends to the bridge -- but only if you could see it, which would involve MITMing the connection to the bridge and also being able to convince the client that you are the bridge, which I think implies having or breaking the identity key too. Doesn't seem so bad.
(Now, any attacker who can steal your onion key can probably also steal your identity key too, if you don't keep that offline, and use it to impersonate you for even longer. The advantage of using a stolen onion key is that it's much harder to detect; all the attacks I can think of that use a stolen identity key involve, whereas the onion-key-theft attack occurs when you are already in a perfect position to be a MITM.)
"...involve publishing a new signed document which others could notice" maybe? Though for the bridge case, the attack could be more subtle, in that you could provide a specially signed descriptor only to your victim user, who would then learn the special onion key from that descriptor, use it, and never know that other users received a different descriptor. An attack like that isn't so bad though, because we still have the second hop and third hop in the circuit, producing their own forward-secret session keys with their own properly rotated onion keys, and having the protections that Nick describes. --Roger
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 01:21:30PM -0400, Roger Dingledine wrote:
Thanks Nick! I endorse Nick's response, with two additions:
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:07:17AM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
Onion key rotation limits the time range in which this kind of attack is useful: it will only work for as long as the onion key is listed in a live directory.
For bridges it is a little bit different, because bridges don't have an onion key listed in any public (consensus style) directory document that clients get. Rather, the client connects to the bridge directly and fetches a full timestamped descriptor from the bridge, which is signed by the bridge's identity key, and which includes the onion key that the client should use.
Thanks, that was a subtlety I had missed. Since we are writing about bridges, I mostly want to give the bridge perspective. We had formerly written this: A relay's current onion keys appear in the Tor network consensus; when clients make circuits through it, they expect it to use certain onion keys. We've now changed it to: Tor clients cache a bridge's onion public keys when they connect; subsequent connections only work if the cached keys are among the bridge's two most recently used sets of onion keys. Here's my old post when I tested what would happen if a client cached one onion key on the first attempt and then the onion key was not the same on the second attempt: https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2022-January/020238.html
So if you have broken an old (rotated) onion key for a bridge, the proper attack involves MITMing the connection to the bridge, breaking or stealing the bridge's identity key too, and crafting a new descriptor that lists the old onion key.
Whereas if the bridge never rotates the onion key, then you would be able to successfully attack the CREATE cell that the client sends to the bridge -- but only if you could see it, which would involve MITMing the connection to the bridge and also being able to convince the client that you are the bridge, which I think implies having or breaking the identity key too. Doesn't seem so bad.
So it sounds like compromise of an onion key is no worse than compromise of an identity key, because with an identity key an attacker could cook up and sign a new onion key. The exception is that if an attacker somehow got an identity key but not current onion keys, and it's a bridge that's affected rather than a relay, then the attacker would not be able to fool clients that had previously connected and cached the past genuine onion keys.
On Wed, Jun 28, 2023 at 02:09:34AM -0600, David Fifield wrote:
Thanks, that was a subtlety I had missed. Since we are writing about bridges, I mostly want to give the bridge perspective. We had formerly written this: A relay's current onion keys appear in the Tor network consensus; when clients make circuits through it, they expect it to use certain onion keys. We've now changed it to: Tor clients cache a bridge's onion public keys when they connect; subsequent connections only work if the cached keys are among the bridge's two most recently used sets of onion keys.
Makes sense.
So it sounds like compromise of an onion key is no worse than compromise of an identity key, because with an identity key an attacker could cook up and sign a new onion key. The exception is that if an attacker somehow got an identity key but not current onion keys, and it's a bridge that's affected rather than a relay, then the attacker would not be able to fool clients that had previously connected and cached the past genuine onion keys.
Right. But that window where the cached version protects you is quite narrow -- it looks like modern clients fetch a new bridge descriptor every TestingBridgeDownloadInitialDelay (3 hours) (see where we set next_attempt_at in learned_bridge_descriptor()), and not too long ago we fetched a fresh bridge descriptor hourly. The reasoning for the frequent fetches is that fetching the bridge's descriptor over a one-hop circuit is a low cost operation, and it doubles as a crude liveness check (since if it succeeds, the bridge should work for real circuits too, and if it fails, we should mark the bridge as not working currently). When Tor starts up with a cached bridge descriptor with a timestamp we like, I imagine it is not long until we attempt to fetch a fresh descriptor. I haven't checked our current behavior though. But I would not rely on this onion key caching for security. Hope this helps! --Roger
On Thu, Jun 01, 2023 at 09:07:17AM -0400, Nick Mathewson wrote:
On Wed, May 24, 2023 at 8:54 PM David Fifield <david@bamsoftware.com> wrote: [...]
What are the risks of not rotating onion keys? My understanding is that rotation is meant to enhance forward security; i.e., limit how far back in time past recorded connections can be attacked in the case of key compromise. https://spec.torproject.org/tor-design Section 4 says: Short-term keys are rotated periodically and independently, to limit the impact of key compromise.
This is an interesting question!
So, compromising an onion key shouldn't be enough on its own to break forward secrecy. The circuit extension handshakes use an additional set of ephemeral keys as part of the negotiation process, which are discarded immediately after the handshake. (This is the diffie-hellman keys in TAP, and the x/X y/Y keypairs in ntor.) Assuming that this is done properly, and all the cryptographic assumptions hold, these keys alone should make it impossible to decrypt anything after the session keys are discarded.
The purpose of the onion key is, rather, to make it impossible for somebody else to impersonate the target relay. If somebody steals your onion key, and they have their own relay R, then they can use your onion key to impersonate you whenever somebody tries to extend a circuit from R to you.
Onion key rotation limits the time range in which this kind of attack is useful: it will only work for as long as the onion key is listed in a live directory.
(Now, any attacker who can steal your onion key can probably also steal your identity key too, if you don't keep that offline, and use it to impersonate you for even longer. The advantage of using a stolen onion key is that it's much harder to detect; all the attacks I can think of that use a stolen identity key involve, whereas the onion-key-theft attack occurs when you are already in a perfect position to be a MITM.)
Thanks, that helps. If I understand correctly, compromise of an onion key allows an attacker to impersonate the relay because it is effectively the relay's "identity" as far as CREATE cells and circuit_send_first_onion_skin are concerned; i.e., the public onion key is the "B" in the ntor handshake, in which the relay's actual long-term identity key doesn't play a role. The only way the identity keys figure into it is that they (via the signing keys) sign the consensus documents that inform clients what onion keys to expect. The way I'm planning to summarize this is that, with onion key rotation disabled, you need to treat the now long-term onion keys as if they were long-term identity keys.
participants (3)
-
David Fifield -
Nick Mathewson -
Roger Dingledine