[tor-dev] Designing and implementing improved circuit-setup protocol [was: GSoC 2011]

[Robert Ransom]

On Thu, 24 Mar 2011 01:28:42 +0100
George Kadianakis <desnacked at gmail.com> wrote:

> Nick Mathewson <nickm at freehaven.net> writes:
> >               <SNIP: asn: Tidying up the thread a bit>
> > On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 1:36 PM, Robert Ransom <rransom.8774 at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> The first step in the Great Tor Crypto Migration is to add new CREATE2
> >> and EXTEND2 RELAY cell types. They can be used with the existing
> >> circuit-extension handshake and link protocol initially, but will be
> >> extensible to support new ones.
> >>
> >> Further steps, all independent of each other:
> >>
> >> * Add 128-byte and 2048-byte RELAY cells and a circuit-configuration
> >>  cell, initially to allow the client to change the cell size to be
> >>  used on a circuit.
> >>
> >> * Refactor Tor's cryptographic primitive abstractions to accommodate
> >>  public-key encryption primitives, public-key signature primitives,
> >>  symmetric authenticated encryption, symmetric block encryption, and
> >>  hashes.
> >>
> >> * Implement one or more new link protocols that do not constrain a
> >>  relay's choice of identity key cryptosystem.
> >>
> >> Further mutually independent steps building on those above:
> >>
> >> * Modify the directory protocol and implementation to support relays
> >>  with multiple identity keys.
> >>
> >> * Implement a new circuit-extension handshake (the part that involves
> >>  ‘onionskins’).
> >>
> >> * Implement a new circuit ciphersuite (the part that mangles cell data
> >>  so that relay A can't see what data relay C sees).
> >
> > Hm.  These steps all stretch pretty far beyond what's just described
> > in 3.2 of xxx-crypto-migration.  I think they're probably more than we
> > can promise to design before summer, and possibly more than a typical
> > gsoc scope all put together.
> >
> 
> This part:
> >> * Implement a new circuit-extension handshake (the part that involves
> >>  ‘onionskins’).
> is in the xxx-crypto-migration, and it might be worthwhile to tackle
> during GSoC. I'm not sure about the BEAR/LIONESS operation (are you?),
> but if we are to design the new CREATE2 cells and we indeed don't
> like the current way of passing DH paramaters around, maybe we should
> find another protocol to do it.

Currently, we do not pass DH parameters around in the circuit-extension
protocol, just DH public keys. If we could pass new DH parameters in
that protocol, we wouldn't need new circuit-extension protocols quite
yet (although a new one would be a Good Thing anyway for performance
reasons).


> Of course, Robert's other ideas are holy and everything, but I think
> we should keep our goals humble so that we can produce an algorithmic
> implementation plan which will allow us to try to predict an
> implementation timeframe and see how many ideas we can fit into this
> GSoC project.

The list I gave above was purely to indicate some of the dependencies
between crypto migration tasks.  I don't expect you to do all of them
for GSoC this summer; that list was intended to explain why you would
most likely not be able to migrate Tor to a new size or type of
identity key this summer.


> For example, things that definitely must be done are: 
> - Implement CREATE2 cells aiming to:
>   * Upgrade onion keys.
>   * Upgrade DH group
>   * Upgrade hash function.
> - Implement EXTEND2 cells aiming to:
>   * Remove length limit, so as to be able to carry the new onion-skins and
>     identity key fingerprints.
> Of course all these, while having in mind the upgradability of
> our design (ie. being versatile wrt the identity key)

The *entire point* of the EXTEND2 and CREATE2 cells must be to allow
future extension to new circuit and link protocols.  We *will* want to
add new circuit and link protocols in the near future, and we shouldn't
need to add a new EXTEND17 or CREATE42 cell (and spend a cell type
number) for each new protocol.


> Then we can move on to:
> - Design a new onion-skin protocol.
> - Play with some of Robert's ideas above.
> - Touch the relay protocol.
> 'till the GSoC bell rings.  
> 
> What are your priorities on this project?
>  
> >>> I'm also a little concerned about the interaction of 3.2 and 3.3
> >>> ("Relay crypto") : I'll be surprised if it turns out that we can
> >>> design a good circuit extend protocol without thinking about the
> >>> countours of a new relay protocol.  (Not that you'd have to build both
> >>> at once, but we should think about them all as we design.)
> >>
> >> It's actually the other way around -- we need a new EXTEND cell before
> >> we can use a new link protocol.  (Otherwise, we would have to build in
> >> a covert channel (i.e. a backdoor for people who want to block Tor by
> >> handshake) in the new link protocol to indicate client and server link
> >> protocol versions, and that really *really* sucks.)
> >
> > I'm talking about the stuff in 3.3: the relay protocol, where we
> > process cells.  Link protocol stuff is 3.1.
> >
> > Also, I'm talking about *design order*, not *implementation order*:
> > The different parts of the Tor protocol are not sufficiently
> > orthogonal that we can do them independently.  Thus, we need to get
> > most of the design changes sketched out before we can be reasonably
> > say that any part of the redesign does what the other parts need.

Circuit-extension handshake protocols and link protocols can be
designed independently of the rest of the protocol.  Link protocols are
reasonably independent of the stuff sent over the link, and the
proposals/ideas/xxx-crypto-requirements.txt document should specify
*all* of the requirements for a new circuit-extension handshake
protocol to not break the rest of Tor's protocols.  (We should still
dig through and annotate tor-spec.txt and rend-spec.txt with exactly
what properties each part requires of circuit handshake protocols, but
I'm quite sure I got all of those properties into
xxx-crypto-requirements.)

> >>> Maybe we should get a protocol sketch together this week if the app is
> >>> due April 8.
> >>
> >> Yes.  I have the EXTEND2 cell draft written; I bogged down on writing
> >> explanatory text (I thought I didn't have enough in the draft, but
> >> didn't know what to add).

> Sharing is caring!

See attached for a nearly-finished draft.


Robert Ransom
-------------- next part --------------
An embedded and charset-unspecified text was scrubbed...
Name: xxx-new-create-and-extend-cells.txt
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20110331/f2f775af/attachment.txt>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 490 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/attachments/20110331/f2f775af/attachment.pgp>