mirror of
https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/tor.git
synced 2024-11-24 04:13:28 +01:00
add proposal 114-distributed-storage.txt
svn:r10374
This commit is contained in:
parent
676367fe76
commit
7ba1d9f3c8
@ -32,4 +32,5 @@ Proposals by number:
|
||||
111 Prioritizing local traffic over relayed traffic [OPEN]
|
||||
112 Bring Back Pathlen Coin Weight [OPEN]
|
||||
113 Simplifying directory authority administration [OPEN]
|
||||
114 Distributed Storage for Tor Hidden Service Descriptors [OPEN]
|
||||
|
||||
|
415
doc/spec/proposals/114-distributed-storage.txt
Normal file
415
doc/spec/proposals/114-distributed-storage.txt
Normal file
@ -0,0 +1,415 @@
|
||||
Filename: 114-distributed-storage.txt
|
||||
Title: Distributed Storage for Tor Hidden Service Descriptors
|
||||
Version: $Revision$
|
||||
Last-Modified: $Date$
|
||||
Author: Karsten Loesing
|
||||
Created: 13-May-2007
|
||||
Status: Open
|
||||
|
||||
Change history:
|
||||
|
||||
13-May-2007 Initial proposal
|
||||
14-May-2007 Added changes suggested by Lasse Overlier
|
||||
|
||||
Overview:
|
||||
|
||||
The basic idea of this proposal is to distribute the tasks of storing and
|
||||
serving hidden service descriptors from currently three authoritative
|
||||
directory nodes among a large subset of all onion routers. The two reasons
|
||||
to do this are better scalability and improved security properties. Further,
|
||||
this proposal suggests changes to the hidden service descriptor format to
|
||||
prevent from new security threads coming from decentralization and to gain
|
||||
even better security properties.
|
||||
|
||||
Motivation:
|
||||
|
||||
The current design of hidden services exhibits the following performance and
|
||||
security problems:
|
||||
|
||||
First, the three hidden service authoritative directories constitute a
|
||||
performance bottleneck in the system. The directory nodes are responsible
|
||||
for storing and serving all hidden service descriptors. At the moment there
|
||||
are about 1000 descriptors at a time, but this number is assumed to increase
|
||||
in the future. Further, there is no replication protocol for descriptors
|
||||
between the three directory nodes, so that hidden services must ensure the
|
||||
availability of their descriptors by manually publishing them on all
|
||||
directory nodes. Whenever a fourth or fifth hidden service authoritative
|
||||
directory was added, hidden services would need to maintain an equally
|
||||
increasing number of replicas. These scalability issues have an impact on
|
||||
the current usage of hidden services and put an even higher burden on the
|
||||
development of new kinds of applications for hidden services that might
|
||||
require to store even bigger numbers of descriptors.
|
||||
|
||||
Second, besides of posing a limitation to scalability, storing all hidden
|
||||
service descriptors on three directory nodes also constitutes a security
|
||||
risk. The directory node operators could easily analyze the publish and fetch
|
||||
requests to derive information on service activity and usage and read the
|
||||
descriptor contents to determine which onion routers work as introduction
|
||||
points for a given hidden service and needed to be attacked or threatened to
|
||||
shut it down. Furthermore, the contents of a hidden service descriptor offer
|
||||
only minimal security properties to the hidden service. Whoever gets aware
|
||||
of the service ID can easily find out whether the service is active at the
|
||||
moment and which introduction points it has. This applies to (former)
|
||||
clients, (former) introduction points, and of course to the directory nodes.
|
||||
It requires only to request the descriptor for the given service ID which
|
||||
can be performed by anyone anonymously.
|
||||
|
||||
This proposal suggests two major changes to approach the described
|
||||
performance and security problems:
|
||||
|
||||
The first change affects the storage location for hidden service
|
||||
descriptors. Descriptors are distributed among a large subset of all onion
|
||||
router instead of three fixed directory nodes. Each storing node is
|
||||
responsible for a subset of descriptors for a limited time only. It is not
|
||||
able to choose which descriptors it stores at a certain time, because this
|
||||
is determined by its onion ID which is hard to change frequently and in time
|
||||
(only routers which are stable for a given time are accepted as storing
|
||||
nodes). In order to resist single node failures and untrustworthy nodes,
|
||||
descriptors are replicated among a certain number of storing nodes. A simple
|
||||
replication protocol makes sure that descriptors don't get lost when the
|
||||
node population changes. Therefore, a storing node periodically requests the
|
||||
descriptors from its siblings. Connections to storing nodes are established
|
||||
by extending existing circuits by one hop to the storing node. This also
|
||||
ensures that contents are encrypted. The effect of this first change is that
|
||||
the probability that a single node operator learns about a certain hidden
|
||||
service is very small and that it is very hard to track a service over time,
|
||||
even when it collaborates with other node operators.
|
||||
|
||||
The second change concerns the content of hidden service descriptors.
|
||||
Obviously, security problems cannot be solved only by decentralizing
|
||||
storage; in fact, they could also get worse if done without caution. At
|
||||
first, a descriptor ID needs to change periodically in order to be stored on
|
||||
changing nodes over time. Next, the descriptor ID needs to be computable only
|
||||
for the service's clients, but should be unpredictable for all other nodes.
|
||||
Further, the storing node needs to be able to verify that the hidden service
|
||||
is the true originator of the descriptor with the given ID even though it is
|
||||
not a client. Finally, a storing node shall only learn as few information as
|
||||
necessary by storing a descriptor, because it might not be as trustworthy as
|
||||
a directory node; for example it does not need to know the list of
|
||||
introduction points. Therefore, a second key is applied that is only known
|
||||
to the hidden service provider and its clients and that is not included in
|
||||
the descriptor. It is used to calculate descriptor IDs and to encrypt the
|
||||
introduction points. This second key can either be given to all clients
|
||||
together with the hidden service ID, or to a group or a single client as
|
||||
authentication token. In the future this second key could be the result of
|
||||
some key agreement protocol between the hidden service and one or more
|
||||
clients. A new text-based format is proposed for descriptors instead of an
|
||||
extension of the existing binary format for reasons of future extensibility.
|
||||
|
||||
Design:
|
||||
|
||||
The proposed design is described by the changes that are necessary to the
|
||||
current design. Changes are grouped by content, rather than by affected
|
||||
specification documents.
|
||||
|
||||
All nodes:
|
||||
|
||||
All nodes can combine the network lists received from all directory nodes
|
||||
to one routing list containing only those nodes that store and serve
|
||||
hidden service descriptors and which are contained in the majority of
|
||||
network lists. A node only trusts its own routing list and never learns
|
||||
about routing information from other nodes. This list should only be
|
||||
created on demand by those nodes that are involved in the new hidden
|
||||
service protocol, i.e. hidden service directory node, hidden service
|
||||
provider, and hidden service client.
|
||||
|
||||
All nodes that are involved in the new hidden service protocol calculate
|
||||
the clock skew between their local time and the times of directory
|
||||
authorities. If the clock skew exceeds 1 minute (as opposed to 30 minutes
|
||||
as in the current implementation), the user is warned upon performing the
|
||||
first operation that is related to hidden services. However, the local
|
||||
time is not adjusted automatically to prevent attacks based on false times
|
||||
from directory authorities.
|
||||
|
||||
Hidden service directory nodes:
|
||||
|
||||
Every onion router can decide whether it wants to store and serve hidden
|
||||
service descriptors by setting a new config option HiddenServiceDirectory
|
||||
0|1 to 1. This option should be 1 by default for those onion routers that
|
||||
have their directory port open, because the smaller the group of storing
|
||||
nodes is, the poorer the security properties are.
|
||||
|
||||
HS directory nodes include the fact that they store and serve hidden
|
||||
service descriptors in router descriptors that they send to directory
|
||||
authorities.
|
||||
|
||||
HS directory nodes accept publish and fetch requests for hidden service
|
||||
descriptors and store/retrieve them to/from their local memory. (It is not
|
||||
necessary to make descriptors persistent, because after disconnecting, the
|
||||
onion router would not be accepted as storing node anyway, because it is
|
||||
not stable.) All requests and replies are formatted as HTTP messages.
|
||||
Requests are directed to the router's directory port and are contained
|
||||
within BEGIN_DIR cells. A HS directory node stores a descriptor only, when
|
||||
it thinks that it is responsible for storing that descriptor based on its
|
||||
own routing table. Every HS directory node is responsible for the
|
||||
descriptor IDs in the interval of its n-th predecessor in the ID circle up
|
||||
to its own ID (n denotes the number of replicas).
|
||||
|
||||
A HS directory node replicates descriptors for which it is responsible by
|
||||
downloading them from other HS directory nodes. Therefore, it checks its
|
||||
routing table periodically every 10 minutes for changes. Whenever it
|
||||
realizes that a predecessor has left the network, it establishes a
|
||||
connection to the new n-th predecessor and requests its stored descriptors
|
||||
in the interval of its (n+1)-th predecessor and the requested n-th
|
||||
predecessor. Whenever it realizes that a new onion router has joined with
|
||||
an ID higher than its former n-th predecessor, it adds it to its
|
||||
predecessors and discards all descriptors in the interval of its (n+1)-th
|
||||
and its n-th predecessor.
|
||||
|
||||
Authoritative directory nodes:
|
||||
|
||||
Directory nodes include a new flag for routers that decided to provide
|
||||
storage for hidden service descriptors and that are stable for a given
|
||||
time. The requirement to be stable prevents a node from frequently
|
||||
changing its onion key to become responsible for a freely chosen
|
||||
identifier.
|
||||
|
||||
Hidden service provider:
|
||||
|
||||
When setting up the hidden service at introduction points, a hidden service
|
||||
provider does not pass its own public key, but the public key of a freshly
|
||||
generated key pair. It also includes this public key in the hidden service
|
||||
descriptor together with the other introduction point information. The
|
||||
reason is that the introduction point does not need to know for which
|
||||
hidden service it works, and should not know it to prevent it from
|
||||
tracking the hidden service's activity.
|
||||
|
||||
Hidden service providers publishes a new descriptor whenever its content
|
||||
changes or a new publication period starts for this descriptor. If the
|
||||
current publication period would only last for less than 60 minutes, the
|
||||
hidden service provider publishes both, a current descriptor and one for
|
||||
the next period. Publication is performed by sending the descriptor to all
|
||||
hidden service directories that are responsible for keeping replicas for
|
||||
the descriptor ID.
|
||||
|
||||
Hidden service client:
|
||||
|
||||
Instead of downloading descriptors from a hidden service authoritative
|
||||
directory, a hidden service client downloads it from a randomly chosen
|
||||
hidden service directory that is responsible for keeping replica for the
|
||||
descriptor ID.
|
||||
|
||||
When contacting an introduction point, the client does not use the
|
||||
public key of the hidden service provider, but the freshly-generated public
|
||||
key that is included in the hidden service descriptor.
|
||||
|
||||
Hidden service descriptor:
|
||||
|
||||
The descriptor ID needs to change periodically in order for the descriptor
|
||||
to be stored on changing nodes over time. It further may only be computable
|
||||
by a hidden service provider and all of his clients to prevent unauthorized
|
||||
nodes from tracking the service activity by periodically checking whether
|
||||
there is a descriptor for this service. Finally, the hidden service
|
||||
directory needs to be able to verify that the hidden service provider is
|
||||
the true originator of the descriptor with the given ID. Therefore, the
|
||||
ID is derived from the public key of the hidden service provider, the
|
||||
current time period, and a shared secret between hidden service provider
|
||||
and clients. Only the hidden service provider and the clients are able to
|
||||
generate future IDs, but together with the descriptor content the hidden
|
||||
service directory is able to verify its origin. The formula for calculating
|
||||
a descriptor ID is as follows:
|
||||
|
||||
descriptor-id = h(permanent-id + h(time-period + cookie))
|
||||
|
||||
"permanent-id" is the hashed value of the public key of the hidden service
|
||||
provider, "time-period" is a periodically changing value, e.g. the current
|
||||
date, and "cookie" is a shared secret between the hidden service provider
|
||||
and its clients. (The "time-period" should be constructed in a way that
|
||||
periods do not change at the same moment for all descriptors by including
|
||||
the "permanent-id" in the construction.) Amonst other things, the
|
||||
descriptor contains the public key of the hidden service provider, the
|
||||
value of h(time-period + cookie), and the signature of the descriptor
|
||||
content with the private key of the hidden service provider.
|
||||
|
||||
The introduction points that are included in the descriptor are encrypted
|
||||
using a key that is derived from the same shared key that is used to
|
||||
generate the descriptor ID. [usage of a derived key as encryption key
|
||||
instead of the shared key itself suggested by LO]
|
||||
|
||||
A new text-based format is proposed for descriptors instead of an
|
||||
extension of the existing binary format for reasons of future
|
||||
extensibility.
|
||||
|
||||
The complete hidden service descriptor format looks like this:
|
||||
|
||||
{
|
||||
descriptor-id = h(permanent-id + h(time-period + cookie))
|
||||
permanent-public-key (with permanent-id = h(permanent-public-key))
|
||||
h(time-period + cookie)
|
||||
timestamp
|
||||
{
|
||||
list of (introduction point IP, port, public service key)
|
||||
} encrypted with h(time-period + cookie + 'introduction')
|
||||
} signed with permanent-private-key
|
||||
|
||||
A hidden service directory can verify that a descriptor was created by the
|
||||
hidden service provider by checking if the descriptor-id corresponds to
|
||||
the permanent-public-key and if the signature can be verified with the
|
||||
permanent-public-key.
|
||||
|
||||
A client can download the descriptor by creating the same descriptor-id
|
||||
and verify its origin by performing the same operations as the hidden
|
||||
service directory.
|
||||
|
||||
Security implications:
|
||||
|
||||
The security implications of the proposed changes are grouped by the roles
|
||||
of nodes that could perform attacks or on which attacks could be performed.
|
||||
|
||||
Attacks by authoritative directory nodes
|
||||
|
||||
Authoritative directory nodes are not anymore the single places in the
|
||||
network that know about a hidden service's activity and introduction
|
||||
points. Thus, they cannot perform attacks using this information, e.g.
|
||||
track a hidden service's activity or usage pattern or attack its
|
||||
introduction points. Formerly, it would only require a single corrupted
|
||||
authoritative directory operator to perform such an attack.
|
||||
|
||||
Attacks by hidden service directory nodes
|
||||
|
||||
A hidden service directory node could misuse a stored descriptor to track
|
||||
a hidden service's activity and usage pattern by clients. Though there is
|
||||
no countermeasure against this kind of attack, it is very expensive to
|
||||
track a certain hidden service over time. An attacker would need to run a
|
||||
large number of stable onion routers that work as hidden service directory
|
||||
nodes to have a good probability to become responsible for its changing
|
||||
descriptor IDs. For each period, the probability is:
|
||||
|
||||
1-(N-c choose r)/(N choose r) for N-c>=r and 1 else with N as total
|
||||
number of hidden service directories, c as compromised nodes, and r as
|
||||
number of replicas
|
||||
|
||||
The hidden service directory nodes could try to make a certain hidden
|
||||
service unavailable to its clients. Therefore, they could discard all
|
||||
stored descriptors for that hidden service and reply to clients that there
|
||||
is no descriptor for the given ID or return an old or false descriptor
|
||||
content. The client would detect a false descriptor, because it could not
|
||||
contain a correct signature. But an old content or an empty reply could
|
||||
confuse the client. Therefore, the countermeasure is to replicate
|
||||
descriptors among a small number of hidden service directories, e.g. 5.
|
||||
The probability of a group of collaborating nodes to make a hidden service
|
||||
completely unavailable is in each period:
|
||||
|
||||
(c choose r)/(N choose r) for c>=r and N>=r, and 0 else with N as total
|
||||
number of hidden service directories, c as compromised nodes, and r as
|
||||
number of replicas
|
||||
|
||||
A hidden service directory could try to find out which introduction points
|
||||
are working on behalf of a hidden service. In contrast to the previous
|
||||
design, this is not possible anymore, because this information is encrypted
|
||||
to the clients of a hidden service.
|
||||
|
||||
Attacks on hidden service directory nodes
|
||||
|
||||
An anonymous attacker could try to swamp a hidden service directory with
|
||||
false descriptors for a given descriptor ID. This is prevented by requiring
|
||||
that descriptors are signed.
|
||||
|
||||
Anonymous attackers could swamp a hidden service directory with correct
|
||||
descriptors for non-existing hidden services. There is no countermeasure
|
||||
against this attack. However, the creation of valid descriptors is more
|
||||
expensive than verification and storage in local memory. This should make
|
||||
this kind of attack unattractive.
|
||||
|
||||
Attacks by introduction points
|
||||
|
||||
Current or former introduction points could try to gain information on the
|
||||
hidden service they serve. But due to the fresh key pair that is used by
|
||||
the hidden service, this attack is not possible anymore.
|
||||
|
||||
Attacks by clients
|
||||
|
||||
Current or former clients could track a hidden service's activity, attack
|
||||
its introduction points, or determine the responsible hidden service
|
||||
directory nodes and attack them. There is nothing that could prevent them
|
||||
from doing so, because honest clients need the full descriptor content to
|
||||
establish a connection to the hidden service. At the moment, the only
|
||||
countermeasure against dishonest clients is to change the secret cookie
|
||||
and pass it only to the honest clients.
|
||||
|
||||
Specification:
|
||||
|
||||
The proposed changes affect multiple sections in several specification
|
||||
documents that are only mentioned in the following. The detailed
|
||||
specification will follow as soon as the design decision above are final.
|
||||
|
||||
dir-spec-v2.txt
|
||||
|
||||
2.1 The router descriptor format needs to include an additional flag to
|
||||
denote that a router is a hidden service directory.
|
||||
|
||||
3 The network status format needs to be extended by a new status flag to
|
||||
denote that a router is a hidden service directory.
|
||||
|
||||
4 The sections on directory caches need to be extended by new sections for
|
||||
the operation of hidden service directories, including replication of
|
||||
descriptors.
|
||||
|
||||
rend-spec.txt
|
||||
|
||||
1.2 The new descriptor format needs to be added.
|
||||
|
||||
1.3 Instead of Bob's public key, the hidden service provider uses a
|
||||
freshly generated public key for every introduction point.
|
||||
|
||||
1.4 Bob's OP does not upload his service descriptor to the authoritative
|
||||
directories, but to the hidden service directories.
|
||||
|
||||
1.6 Alice's OP downloads the service descriptors similarly as Bob
|
||||
published them in 1.4.
|
||||
|
||||
1.8 Alice uses the public key that is included in the descriptor instead
|
||||
of Bob's permanent service key.
|
||||
|
||||
tor-spec.txt
|
||||
|
||||
6.2.1 Directory streams need to be used for connections to hidden service
|
||||
directories.
|
||||
|
||||
Compatibility:
|
||||
|
||||
The proposed design is meant to replace the current design for hidden service
|
||||
descriptors and their storage in the long run.
|
||||
|
||||
There should be a first transition phase in which both, the current design
|
||||
and the proposed design are served in parallel. Onion routers should start
|
||||
serving as hidden service directories, and hidden service providers and
|
||||
clients should make use of the new design if both sides support it. But
|
||||
hidden service providers should continue publishing descriptors of the
|
||||
current format, and authoritative directories should store and serve these
|
||||
descriptors.
|
||||
|
||||
After the first transition phase, hidden service providers should stop
|
||||
publishing descriptors on authoritative directories, and hidden service
|
||||
clients should not try to fetch descriptors from the authoritative
|
||||
directories. However, the authoritative directories should continue serving
|
||||
hidden service descriptors for a second transition phase.
|
||||
|
||||
After the second transition phase, the authoritative directories should stop
|
||||
serving hidden service descriptors.
|
||||
|
||||
Implementation:
|
||||
|
||||
There are three key lengths that might need some discussion:
|
||||
|
||||
1) desciptor-id, formerly known as onion address: It is generated by OPs
|
||||
internally and used for storing and looking up descriptors. There is no
|
||||
need to remember a descriptor-id for a human. In order to reduce
|
||||
the success rate of collisions it could be extended to 256 bits instead
|
||||
of 80 bits. This requires a secure hash function with an output of 256
|
||||
instead of 160 bits, e.g. SHA-256. [extending the descriptor-id length
|
||||
from 80 to 256 bits suggested by LO]
|
||||
|
||||
2) permanent-id: This is the first half of the onion address that a client
|
||||
passes to his OP. The onion address should be easy to memorize.
|
||||
Therefore, the overall length of an onion address should not be
|
||||
extended over the existing 80 bits, so that 40 bits is the maximum
|
||||
length of the permanent-id. However, the question remains open, if an
|
||||
onion address of 40+40=80 bits can generate a descriptor-id with enough
|
||||
entropy to justify 256 instead of 80 bits. Otherwise, the onion address
|
||||
would need to be extended to 128, 160, 224, or 256 bits, making it
|
||||
harder to memorize for human-beings.
|
||||
|
||||
3) cookie: This is the second half of the onion address that is passed to
|
||||
an OP. It should have the same size as permanent-id.
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user