When an HS process an INTRODUCE2 cell, we didn't validate if the IP address
of the rendezvous point was a local address. If it's the case, we end up
wasting resources by trying to extend to a local address which fails since
we do not allow that in circuit_extend().
This commit now rejects a rendezvous point that has a local address once
seen at the hidden service side unless ExtendAllowPrivateAddresses is set.
Fixes#8976
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@ev0ke.net>
When self-testing reachability, use ExtendAllowPrivateAddresses
to determine if local/private addresses imply reachability.
The previous fix used TestingTorNetwork, which implies
ExtendAllowPrivateAddresses, but this excluded rare configs where
ExtendAllowPrivateAddresses is set but TestingTorNetwork is not.
Fixes bug 15771; bugfix on 0.2.6.1-alpha, bug #13924.
Patch by "teor", issue discovered by CJ Ess.
like might happen for Tails or Whonix users who start with a very wrong
hardware clock, use Tor to discover a more accurate time, and then
fix their clock.
Resolves part of ticket 8766.
(There are still some timers in various places that aren't addressed yet.)
If we decide not to use a new guard because we want to retry older
guards, only close the locally-originating circuits passing through
that guard. Previously we would close all the circuits.
Fixes bug 9819; bugfix on 0.2.1.1-alpha. Reported by "skruffy".
Stop assuming that private addresses are local when checking
reachability in a TestingTorNetwork. Instead, when testing, assume
all OR connections are remote. (This is necessary due to many test
scenarios running all nodes on localhost.)
This assists in bootstrapping a testing Tor network.
Fixes bugs 13718 & 13924.
choose_good_entry_server() now excludes current entry
guards and their families, unless we're in a test network,
and excluding guards would exclude all nodes.
This typically occurs in incredibly small tor networks,
and those using TestingAuthVoteGuard *
This is an incomplete fix, but is no worse than the previous
behaviour, and only applies to minimal, testing tor networks
(so it's no less secure).
Discovered as part of #13718.
By now, support in the network is widespread and it's time to require
more modern crypto on all Tor instances, whether they're clients or
servers. By doing this early in 0.2.6, we can be sure that at some point
all clients will have reasonable support.
Also, refactor the way we handle failed handshakes so that this
warning doesn't propagate itself to "onion_skin_client_handshake
failed" and "circuit_finish_handshake failed" and
"connection_edge_process_relay_cell (at origin) failed."
Resolves warning from 9635.
I looked for other places where we set circ->n_chan early, and found
one in circuit_handle_first_hop() right before it calls
circuit_send_next_onion_skin(). If onion_skin_create() fails there,
then n_chan will still be set when circuit_send_next_onion_skin()
returns. We should probably fix that too.
Check for consistency between the queued destroy cells and the marked
circuit IDs. Check for consistency in the count of queued destroy
cells in several ways. Check to see whether any of the marked circuit
IDs have somehow been marked longer than the channel has existed.
Use a per-channel ratelim_t to control the rate at which we report
failures for each channel.
Explain why I picked N=32.
Never return a zero circID.
Thanks to Andrea and to cypherpunks.
Fixes a possible root cause of 11553 by only making 64 attempts at
most to pick a circuitID. Previously, we would test every possible
circuit ID until we found one or ran out.
This algorithm succeeds probabilistically. As the comment says:
This potentially causes us to give up early if our circuit ID
space is nearly full. If we have N circuit IDs in use, then we
will reject a new circuit with probability (N / max_range) ^
MAX_CIRCID_ATTEMPTS. This means that in practice, a few percent
of our circuit ID capacity will go unused.
The alternative here, though, is to do a linear search over the
whole circuit ID space every time we extend a circuit, which is
not so great either.
This makes new vs old clients distinguishable, so we should try to
batch it with other patches that do that, like 11438.
Right now this accounts for about 1% of circuits over all, but if you
pick a guard that's running 0.2.3, it will be about 6% of the circuits
running through that guard.
Making sure that every circuit has at least one ntor link means that
we're getting plausibly good forward secrecy on every circuit.
This implements ticket 9777,
