Add proposal 142: Combine Introduction and Rendezvous Points

svn:r15531

1 files changed, 280 insertions, 0 deletions

diff --git a/proposals/142-combine-intro-and-rend-points.txt b/proposals/142-combine-intro-and-rend-points.txt
new file mode 100644
index 0000000..3e835ec
--- /dev/null
+++ b/proposals/142-combine-intro-and-rend-points.txt
@@ -0,0 +1,280 @@
+Filename: 142-combine-intro-and-rend-points.txt
+Title: Combine Introduction and Rendezvous Points
+Version: $Revision$
+Last-Modified: $Date$
+Author: Karsten Loesing, Christian Wilms
+Created: 27-Jun-2008
+Status: Open
+
+Change history:
+
+  27-Jun-2008  Initial proposal for or-dev
+
+Overview:
+
+  Establishing a connection to a hidden service currently involves two Tor
+  relays, introduction and rendezvous point, and 10 more relays distributed
+  over four circuits to connect to them. The introduction point is
+  established in the mid-term by a hidden service to transfer introduction
+  requests from client to the hidden service. The rendezvous point is set
+  up by the client for a single hidden service request and actually
+  transfers end-to-end encrypted application data between client and hidden
+  service.
+
+  There are some reasons for separating the two roles of introduction and
+  rendezvous point: (1) Plausible deniability: A relay shall not be made
+  responsible that it relays data for a certain hidden service; in the
+  original design as described in [1] an introduction point relays no
+  application data, and a rendezvous points neither knows the hidden
+  service nor can it decrypt the data. (2) Scalability: The hidden service
+  shall not have to maintain a number of open circuits proportional to the
+  expected number of client requests. (3) Attack resistance: The effect of
+  an attack on the only visible parts of a hidden service, its introduction
+  points, shall be as small as possible.
+
+  However, elimination of a separate rendezvous connection as proposed by
+  Øverlier and Syverson [2] is the most promising approach to improve the
+  delay in connection establishment. From all substeps of connection
+  establishment extending a circuit by only a single hop is responsible for
+  a major part of delay. Reducing on-demand circuit extensions from two to
+  one results in a decrease of mean connection establishment times from 39
+  to 29 seconds [3]. Particularly, eliminating the delay on hidden-service
+  side allows the client to better observe progress of connection
+  establishment, thus allowing it to use smaller timeouts. Proposal 114
+  introduced new introduction keys for introduction points and provides for
+  user authorization data in hidden service descriptors; it will be shown
+  in this proposal that introduction keys in combination with new
+  introduction cookies provide for the first security property of plausible
+  deniability. Further, eliminating the need for a separate introduction
+  connection benefits the overall network load by decreasing the number of
+  circuit extensions. After all, having only one connection between client
+  and hidden service reduces the overall protocol complexity.
+
+Design:
+
+  1. Hidden Service Configuration
+
+  Hidden services should be able to choose whether they would like to use
+  this protocol. This might be opt-in for 0.2.1.x and opt-out for later
+  major releases.
+
+  2. Contact Point Establishment
+
+  When preparing a hidden service, a Tor client selects a set of relays to
+  act as contact points instead of introduction points. The contact point
+  combines both roles of introduction and rendezvous point as proposed in
+  [2]. The only requirement for a relay to be picked as contact point is
+  its capability of performing this role. This can be determined from the
+  Tor version number that needs to be equal or higher than the first
+  version that implements this proposal.
+
+  The easiest way to implement establishment of contact points is to
+  introduce v2 ESTABLISH_INTRO cells and use the currently unused auth type
+  number 1 for contact points.
+
+     V      Format byte: set to 255               [1 octet]
+     V      Version byte: set to 2                [1 octet]
+     KLEN   Key length                           [2 octets]
+     PK     Bob's public key                  [KLEN octets]
+     HS     Hash of session info                [20 octets]
+     AUTHT  The auth type that is supported       [1 octet]
+     AUTHL  Length of auth data                  [2 octets]
+     AUTHD  Auth data                            [variable]
+     SIG    Signature of above information       [variable]
+
+  The hidden service does not create a fixed number of contact points, like
+  3 in the current protocol. It uses a minimum of 3 contact points, but
+  increases this number depending on the history of client requests within
+  the last hour. The hidden service also increases this number depending on
+  the frequency of failing contact points in order to defend against
+  attacks on its contact points. When client authorization as described in
+  proposal 121 is used, a hidden service can also use the number of
+  authorized clients as first estimate for the required number of contact
+  points.
+
+  3. Hidden Service Descriptor Creation
+
+  A hidden service needs to issue a fresh introduction cookie for each
+  established introduction point. By requiring clients to use this cookie
+  in a later connection establishment, an introduction point cannot access
+  the hidden service that it works for. Together with the fresh
+  introduction key that was introduced in proposal 114, this results in
+  plausible deniability for the contact point.
+
+  The v2 hidden service descriptor format contains an
+  "intro-authentication" field that may contain introduction-point specific
+  keys. The hidden service creates a random string, comparable to the
+  rendezvous cookie, and includes it in the descriptor as introduction
+  cookie. Existing clients that do not understand this new protocol simply
+  ignore that cookie. Further, the hidden service lists in the
+  "protocol-versions" field that it supports this protocol.
+
+  4. Connection Establishment
+
+  When establishing a connection to a hidden service a client learns about
+  the capability of using the new protocol from the hidden service
+  descriptor. It may choose whether to use this new protocol or not,
+  whereas older clients cannot understand the new capability and can only
+  use the current protocol. Client using version 0.2.1.x should be able to
+  opt-in for using the new protocol, which should change to opt-out for
+  later major releases.
+
+  When using the new capability the client creates a v2 INTRODUCE1 cell
+  that extends an unversioned INTRODUCE1 cell by adding the content of an
+  ESTABLISH_RENDEZVOUS cell. Further, the client sends this cell using the
+  new cell type 41 RELAY_INTRODUCE1_VERSIONED to the introduction point,
+  because unversioned and versioned INTRODUCE1 cells are indistinguishable:
+
+  Cleartext
+     V      Version byte: set to 2                [1 octet]
+     PK_ID  Identifier for Bob's PK             [20 octets]
+     AUTHT  The auth type that is supported       [1 octet]
+     AUTHL  Length of auth data                  [2 octets]
+     AUTHD  Auth data                            [variable]
+  Encrypted to Bob's PK:
+     VER    Version byte: set to 3.               [1 octet]
+     AUTHT  The auth type that is supported       [1 octet]
+     AUTHL  Length of auth data                  [2 octets]
+     AUTHD  Auth data                            [variable]
+     IP     Rendezvous point's address           [4 octets]
+     PORT   Rendezvous point's OR port           [2 octets]
+     ID     Rendezvous point identity ID        [20 octets]
+     KLEN   Length of onion key                  [2 octets]
+     KEY    Rendezvous point onion key        [KLEN octets]
+     RC     Rendezvous cookie                   [20 octets]
+     g^x    Diffie-Hellman data, part 1        [128 octets]
+
+  The cleartext part contains the rendezvous cookie as auth data for the
+  currently unused auth type 1. The contact point remembers the rendezvous
+  cookie just as a rendezvous point would do.
+
+  The encrypted part contains the introduction cookie as auth data for the
+  likewise unused auth type 1. The rendezvous cookie is contained as
+  before, but the remaining rendezvous point information is left empty, as
+  there is no separate rendezvous point.
+
+  5. Rendezvous Establishment
+
+  The contact point recognizes a v2 INTRODUCE1 cell with auth type 1 as a
+  request to be used in the new protocol. It remembers the contained
+  rendezvous cookie, replies to the client with an INTRODUCE_ACK cell
+  (omitting the RENDEZVOUS_ESTABLISHED cell), and forwards the encrypted
+  part of the INTRODUCE1 cell as INTRODUCE2 cell to the hidden service.
+
+  6. Introduction at Hidden Service
+
+  The hidden services recognizes an INTRODUCE2 cell containing an
+  introduction cookie as authorization data. In this case, it does not
+  extend a circuit to a rendezvous point, but sends a RENDEZVOUS1 cell
+  directly back to its contact point as usual.
+
+  7. Rendezvous at Contact Point
+
+  The contact point processes a RENDEZVOUS1 cell just as a rendezvous point
+  does. The only difference is that the hidden-service-side circuit is not
+  exclusive for the client connection, but shared among multiple client
+  connections.
+
+Security Implications:
+
+  (1) Plausible deniability
+
+  One of the original reasons for the separation of introduction and
+  rendezvous points is that a relay shall not be made responsible that it
+  relays data for a certain hidden service. In the current design an
+  introduction point relays no application data and a rendezvous points
+  neither knows the hidden service nor can it decrypt the data.
+
+  This property is also fulfilled in this new design. A contact point only
+  learns a fresh introduction key instead of the hidden service key, so
+  that it cannot recognize a hidden service. Further, the introduction
+  cookie, which is unknown to the contact point, prevents it from accessing
+  the hidden service itself. The only way for a contact point to access a
+  hidden service is to look up whether it is contained in the descriptors
+  of known hidden services. A contact point can plausibly deny knowledge of
+  any hidden services, so that it cannot know for which hidden service it
+  is working. In addition to that, it cannot learn the data that it
+  transfers, because all communication between client and hidden service
+  are end-to-end encrypted.
+
+  (2) Scalability
+
+  Another goal of the existing hidden service protocol is that a hidden
+  service does not have to maintain a number of open circuits proportional
+  to the expected number of client requests. The rationale behind this is
+  better scalability.
+
+  The new protocol eliminates the need for a hidden service to extend
+  circuits on demand, which has a positive effect circuits establishment
+  times and overall network load. The solution presented here to establish
+  a number of contact points proportional to the history of connection
+  requests reduces the number of circuits to a minimum number that fits the
+  hidden service's needs.
+
+  (3) Attack resistance
+
+  The third goal of separating introduction and rendezvous points is to
+  limit the effect of an attack on the only visible parts of a hidden
+  service which are the contact points in this protocol.
+
+  In theory, the new protocol is more vulnerable to this attack. An
+  attacker who can take down a contact point does not only eliminate an
+  access point to the hidden service, but also breaks current client
+  connections to the hidden service using that contact point.
+
+  Øverlier and Syverson proposed the concept of valet nodes as additional
+  safeguard for introduction/contact points [4]. Unfortunately, this
+  increases hidden service protocol complexity conceptually and from an
+  implementation point of view. Therefore, it is not included in this
+  proposal.
+
+  However, in practice attacking a contact point (or introduction point) is
+  not as rewarding as it might appear. The cost for a hidden service to set
+  up a new contact point and publish a new hidden service descriptor is
+  minimal compared to the efforts necessary for an attacker to take a Tor
+  relay down. As a countermeasure to further frustrate this attack, the
+  hidden service raises the number of contact points as a function of
+  previous contact point failures.
+
+  Further, the probability of breaking client connections due to attacking
+  a contact point is minimal. It can be assumed that the probability of one
+  of the other five involved relays in a hidden service connection failing
+  or being shut down is higher than that of a successful attack on a
+  contact point.
+
+  (4) Resistance against Locating Attacks
+
+  Clients are no longer able to force a hidden service to create or extend
+  circuits. This further reduces an attacker's capabilities of locating a
+  hidden server as described by Øverlier and Syverson [5].
+
+Compatibility:
+
+  The presented protocol does not raise compatibility issues with current
+  Tor versions. New relay versions support both, the existing and the
+  proposed protocol as introduction/rendezvous/contact points. A contact
+  point acts as introduction point simultaneously. Hidden services and
+  clients can opt-in to use the new protocol which might change to opt-out
+  some time in the future.
+
+References:
+
+  [1] Roger Dingledine, Nick Mathewson, and Paul Syverson, Tor: The
+  Second-Generation Onion Router. In the Proceedings of the 13th USENIX
+  Security Symposium, August 2004.
+
+  [2] Lasse Øverlier and Paul Syverson, Improving Efficiency and Simplicity
+  of Tor Circuit Establishment and Hidden Services. In the Proceedings of
+  the Seventh Workshop on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET 2007),
+  Ottawa, Canada, June 2007.
+
+  [3] Christian Wilms, Improving the Tor Hidden Service Protocol Aiming at
+  Better Performance, diploma thesis, June 2008, University of Bamberg.
+
+  [4] Lasse Øverlier and Paul Syverson, Valet Services: Improving Hidden
+  Servers with a Personal Touch. In the Proceedings of the Sixth Workshop
+  on Privacy Enhancing Technologies (PET 2006), Cambridge, UK, June 2006.
+
+  [5] Lasse Øverlier and Paul Syverson, Locating Hidden Servers. In the
+  Proceedings of the 2006 IEEE Symposium on Security and Privacy, May 2006.
+