I'm going to want a generic "onionskin" type and set of wrappers, and
for that, it will be helpful to isolate the different circuit creation
handshakes. Now the original handshake is in onion_tap.[ch], the
CREATE_FAST handshake is in onion_fast.[ch], and onion.[ch] now
handles the onion queue.
This commit does nothing but move code and adjust header files.
Here we try to handle curve25519 onion keys from generating them,
loading and storing them, publishing them in our descriptors, putting
them in microdescriptors, and so on.
This commit is untested and probably buggy like whoa
This patch moves curve25519_keypair_t from src/or/onion_ntor.h to
src/common/crypto_curve25519.h, and adds new functions to generate,
load, and store keypairs.
Previously, we only used the strong OS entropy source as part of
seeding OpenSSL's RNG. But with curve25519, we'll have occasion to
want to generate some keys using extremely-good entopy, as well as the
means to do so. So let's!
This patch refactors the OS-entropy wrapper into its own
crypto_strongest_rand() function, and makes our new
curve25519_secret_key_generate function try it as appropriate.
The ntor handshake--described in proposal 216 and in a paper by
Goldberg, Stebila, and Ustaoglu--gets us much better performance than
our current approach.
We want to use donna-c64 when we have a GCC with support for
64x64->uint128_t multiplying. If not, we want to use libnacl if we
can, unless it's giving us the unsafe "ref" implementation. And if
that isn't going to work, we'd like to use the
portable-and-safe-but-slow 32-bit "donna" implementation.
We might need more library searching for the correct libnacl,
especially once the next libnacl release is out -- it's likely to have
bunches of better curve25519 implementations.
I also define a set of curve25519 wrapper functions, though it really
shouldn't be necessary.
We should eventually make the -donna*.c files get build with
-fomit-frame-pointer, since that can make a difference.
There was one place in curve25519-donna-c64 that was relying on
unaligned access and relying on little-endian values. This patch
fixes that.
I've sent Adam a pull request.
Our old warn_nonlocal_client_ports() would give a bogus warning for
every nonlocal port every time it parsed any ports at all. So if it
parsed a nonlocal socksport, it would complain that it had a nonlocal
socksport...and then turn around and complain about the nonlocal
socksport again, calling it a nonlocal transport or nonlocal dnsport,
if it had any of those.
Fixes bug 7836; bugfix on 0.2.3.3-alpha.
mr-4 reports on #7799 that he was seeing it several times per second,
which suggests that things had gone very wrong.
This isn't a real fix, but it should make Tor usable till we can
figure out the real issue.
This implements the server-side of proposal 198 by detecting when
clients lack the magic list of ciphersuites that indicates that
they're lying faking some ciphers they don't really have. When
clients lack this list, we can choose any cipher that we'd actually
like. The newly allowed ciphersuites are, currently, "All ECDHE-RSA
ciphers that openssl supports, except for ECDHE-RSA-RC4".
The code to detect the cipher list relies on on (ab)use of
SSL_set_session_secret_cb.
We already use this classification for deciding whether (as a server)
to do a v2/v3 handshake, and we're about to start using it for
deciding whether we can use good ciphersuites too.
This is less easy than you might think; we can't just look at the
client ciphers list, since openssl doesn't remember client ciphers if
it doesn't know about them. So we have to keep a list of the "v2"
ciphers, with the ones we don't know about removed.
It's important not to call choose_array_element_by_weight and then
pass its return value unchecked to smartlist_get : it is allowed to
return -1.
Fixes bug 7756; bugfix on 4e3d07a6 (not in any released Tor)
This is good enough to give P_success >= 999,999,999/1,000,000,000 so
long as the address space is less than 97.95 full. It'd be ridiculous
for that to happen for IPv6, and usome reasonable assumptions, it
would also be pretty silly for IPv4.
