[tor-dev] N reasons why the spooks love Tribler (Number N' will surprise you)
yawning at schwanenlied.me
Sat Dec 20 09:56:49 UTC 2014
Recently a decentralized onion-routing based Bittorrent client known as
Tribler has made rounds through the clickbait garbage^w^wtech
journalism sites. Since protocol design is a research interest of
mine, I did some casual analysis based off the documentation and
publicly available source code.
Disclaimer: Analysis was casual and not massively in-depth though I
believe it to be correct. Known issues are highlighted as such, though
there is a decent amount of new material. References to how Tor
approaches certain design problems are provided as appropriate.
TLDR: Do not use this if your threat model includes active attackers,
adversaries versed in cryptography, those with lots of money, or if you
wish to be anonymous.
* The protocol documentation located at
* The source code of the "devel" branch
as of commit a98db38f60550dd304d1e329e16a41a683666c15
* There is no built in safeguard against creating circuits of
arbitrary lengths. The subset of the Tor protocol the Tribler
designers implemented is lacking a RELAY_EARLY type construct.
Active adversaries can exploit this flaw to create substantial load
on the Tribler network, and mount certain kinds of attacks.
* Proposal 110 " Avoiding infinite length circuits"
* Evans, S., Dingledine, R., Grothoff, C. "A Practical Congestion
Attack on Tor Using Long Paths"
* The symmetric encryption is ECB-AES128, without authentication.
The former is a documented flaw in the specification and is claimed
that it is "for testing", with what looks like a skeletal attempt
to use OFB-AES128 present in the code.
ECB should not go on the wire ever and is only useful as a building
block for other modes. Even as a "for testing" this is rather
sloppy, and is something that should have been addressed way before
real users start using the protocol.
The skeletal OFB-AES128 implementation included in dead code is not
any better as it reuses a hard coded initialization vector for every
single encryption operation. IV reuse within a given key across
encryption operations breaks the confidentiality of the mode.
The lack of authentication is flat out inexcusable for reasons that
should be obvious.
It is worth noting that this is one of the kludgier bits of the Tor
wire protocol currently (see the 'digest' and 'recognized' fields in
each RELAY cell, and proposals/ideas/xxx-new-crypto-sketch.txt), so
improvements over "what Tor does" are possible and recommended.
(As an aside, it's somewhat difficult to sort through which parts of
the cryptography code are actually used and which are not.)
* When gmpy is not present, Diffie-Hellman keys are generated with
python's random.randint(). This is issue #874, and it should be
evident why this is incorrect, and utterly terrible.
The fact that developer comments regarding this bug note that this
fallback is present only because gmpy did not work on Android
should raise massive red flags in light of the next issue.
* When gmpy *is* installed, Diffie-Hellman keys are generated with
while dh_secret >= DIFFIE_HELLMAN_MODULUS or dh_secret < 2:
dh_secret = rand("next", DIFFIE_HELLMAN_MODULUS)
As far as I can tell, gmpy's rand() is either unseeded or is seeded
via the following idiom that is scattered throughout the code (I
suspect it is the latter, due to the Paillier cryptosystem code
being cross referenced from other modules, but it's hard to tell):
# The definition of StrongRandom changes depending on the file.
# But every file that uses the construct illustrated here pulls it
# in from optional_crypto, which looks like:
# raise ImportError()
# # Dead code, this would be slightly less horrific, maybe.
# from Crypto.Random.random import StrongRandom
# except ImportError:
# # ... Words can not describe how sad I am.
# from random import Random as StrongRandom
from optional_crypto import StrongRandom
from sys import maxint
rand('seed', StrongRandom().randint(0, maxint))
The unseeded case results in a LCG of the form:
x = 1 // Yes, a hard coded seed.
x = (29CF535 * x + 1) % (2^32)
It should be obvious as to why this is totally broken.
The seeded case results in a LCG of the form:
x = (48A74F367FA7B5C8ACBB36901308FA85 * x + 1) % (2^128)
This is fatally broken and insecure on several fronts.
a) "StrongRandom" is Mersenne Twister seeded once via
os.urandom(). What little "StrongRandom" actually resembles
something that is "Strong" and "Random" is due to the Python
developers, though in practice it is neither.
b) The GMP LCG is seeded with 32/64 bits of "entropy", where
"entropy" is Mersenne Twister output.
c) GMP's LCG is used for key generation.
* How not to do Diffie-Hellman:
key = pow(dh_received, dh_secret, DIFFIE_HELLMAN_MODULUS)
This is relatively minor since recovering the secret key is trivial
via PRNG attacks, so the fact that the modular exponentiation is not
constant time matters less.
* How not to do RSA:
def rsa_encrypt(key, element):
assert isinstance(element, (long, int)), type(element)
_element = mpz(element)
return long(pow(_element, key.e, key.n))
def rsa_decrypt(key, cipher):
assert isinstance(cipher, long), type(cipher)
_cipher = mpz(cipher)
return long(pow(_cipher, key.d, key.n))
RSA being implemented without blinding, using GMP's modular
exponentiation, and without OAEP is something I pray that I never
Things not covered:
* How the intro point/rendezvous system works, including peer discovery
and etc (Assuming it is trivial to obtain lots of ECElgamal keys/IP
address:Port combinations of endpoints, it appears that it is
possible to use the CREATE/CREATED response to mount an UDP
amplification attack. But I did not check how easy this would be to
mount in practice.)
* The bittorrent bits.
* The "dispersy" component beyond "ok, at least the ECElgamal key
generation uses M2Crypto, assuming the horribly broken keygen code
dead like I think it is".
* For users, "don't". Cursory analysis found enough fundamental
flaws, and secure protocol design/implementation errors that I would
be reluctant to consider this secure, even if the known issues were
fixed. It may be worth revisiting in several years when the
designers obtain more experience, and a thorough third party audit
of the improved code and design has been done.
* For the developers:
* Use a CSPRNG when doing key generation. Neither GMP's LCG nor
Mersenne Twister are CSPRNGs, even if they are seeded from
"StrongRandom" that actually is a "StrongRandom" (rather than a
* Add a construct similar to RELAY_EARLY.
* Add authenticated encryption to cell payload. This will break
* Use constant time modular exponentiation. As a matter of fact,
don't include your own implementations of ECElGamal, RSA, and
Diffie-Hellman. Use well tested/known secure library code
* Blind RSA operations, use padding as appropriate.
* Fix the symmetric encryption somehow, after obtaining a in-depth
understanding of what things break security of the mode you wish
to use in various ways (Eg: IV/Nonce reuse).
* Instead of a DH + ElGamal handshake, consider Ntor. Even with
GMPY, doing modular exponentiation is relatively CPU intensive,
and there is the threat of CPU exhaustion attacks here.
* Clean out all the dead code, after printing out copies to use to
scare small children.
Most of the fixes require major revisions to the wire protocol. As
it appears that there is no versioning, how that will be done is
left as an exercise for the student.
Alternatively, rebase the system on I2P.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Size: 819 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
More information about the tor-dev