First, clarify that this is for planned deprecations, not
security-related issues.
Second, we actually _don't_ want to remove the versions from the
approved list before the EOL date, or people will start getting
warnings too early.
Proposal 289 prevents SENDME-flooding by requiring the other side to
authenticate the data it has received. But this data won't actually
be random if they are downloading a known resource. "No problem",
we said, "let's fell the empty parts of our cells with some
randomness!" and we did that in #26871.
Unfortunately, if the relay data payloads are all completely full,
there won't be any empty parts for us to randomize.
Therefore, we now pick random "randomness windows" between
CIRCWINDOW_INCREMENT/2 and CIRCWINDOW_INCREMENT. We remember whether we have
sent a cell containing at least 16 bytes of randomness in that window. If we
haven't, then when the window is exhausted, we send one. (This window approach
is designed to lower the number of rng checks we have to do. The number 16 is
pulled out of a hat to change the attacker's guessing difficulty to
"impossible".)
Implements 28646.
We added this facility so that we could get deterministic PRNG
behavior for coverage testing on tests that use a replaced PRNG.
We need to have our coverage determinism tool test for this as well.
Because it invokes the Tor mainloop, it does unpredictable things to
test coverage of a lot of code that it doesn't actually test at
all. (It is more an integration test than anything else.)
The ordinary definitions of timeradd() and timersub() contain a
branch. However, in coverage builds, this means that we get spurious
complaints about partially covered basic blocks, in a way that makes
our coverage determinism harder to check.
Ordinarily we skip calling log_fn(LOG_DEBUG,...) if debug logging is
completely disabled. However, in coverage builds, this means that
we get spurious complaints about partially covered basic blocks, in
a way that makes our coverage determinism harder to check.
Two non fatal asserts are added in this commit. First one is to see if the
SENDME digest list kept on the circuit for validation ever grows bigger than
the maximum number of expected SENDME on a circuit (currently 10).
The second one is to know if we ever send more than one SENDME at a time on a
circuit. In theory, we shouldn't but if we ever do, the v1 implementation
wouldn't work because we only keep one single cell digest (the previous cell
to the SENDME) on the circuit/cpath. Thus, sending two SENDME consecutively
will lead to a mismatch on the other side because the same cell digest would
be use and thus the circuit would collapse.
Finally, add an extra debug log in case we emit a v0 which also includes the
consensus emit version in that case.
Part of #30428
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
We must not accumulate digests on the circuit if the other end point is using
another SENDME version that is not using those digests like v0.
This commit makes it that we always pop the digest regardless of the version.
Part of #30428
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Commit 4ef8470fa5480d3b was actually reverted before because in the end we
needed to do this minus 1 check on the window.
This commit clarifies that in the code, takes the useful comment changes from
4ef8470fa5480d3b and makes sendme_circuit_cell_is_next() private since it
behaves in a very specific way that one external caller might expect.
Part of #30428.
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Turns out that we were only recording the "b_digest" but to have
bidirectionnal authenticated SENDMEs, we need to use the "f_digest" in the
forward cell situation.
Because of the cpath refactoring, this commit plays with the crypt_path_ and
relay_crypto_t API a little bit in order to respect the abstractions.
Previously, we would record the cell digest as the SENDME digest in the
decrypt cell function but to avoid code duplication (both directions needs to
record), we now do that right after iff the cell is recognized (at the edge).
It is now done in circuit_receive_relay_cell() instead.
We now also record the cell digest as the SENDME digest in both relay cell
encryption functions since they are split depending on the direction.
relay_encrypt_cell_outbound() and relay_encrypt_cell_inbound() need to
consider recording the cell digest depending on their direction (f vs b
digest).
Fixes#30428
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
There was a missing cell version check against our max supported version. In
other words, we do not fallback to v0 anymore in case we do know the SENDME
version.
We can either handle it or not, never fallback to the unauthenticated version
in order to avoid gaming the authenticated logic.
Add a unit tests making sure we properly test that and also test that we can
always handle the default emit and accepted versions.
Fixes#30428
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
The validation of the SENDME cell is now done as the very first thing when
receiving it for both client and exit. On failure to validate, the circuit is
closed as detailed in the specification.
Part of #30428
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
It turns out that only the exit side is validating the authenticated SENDME v1
logic and never the client side. Which means that if a client ever uploaded
data towards an exit, the authenticated SENDME logic wouldn't apply.
For this to work, we have to record the cell digest client side as well which
introduced a new function that supports both type of edges.
This also removes a test that is not valid anymore which was that we didn't
allow cell recording on an origin circuit (client).
Part of #30428
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
We want to support parsing a cell with unknown status code so we are forward
compatible.
Part of #30454
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
Like the previous commit about the INTRODUCE_ACK status code, change all auth
key type to use the one defined in the trunnel file.
Standardize the use of these auth type to a common ABI.
Part of #30454
Signed-off-by: David Goulet <dgoulet@torproject.org>
