[tor-dev] Proposal 351: Making SOCKS5 authentication extensions extensible

[Jim Newsome]

It'd be helpful to have more context about the object IDs and what we're 
trying to accomplish with them here; why we need/want them in arti but 
didn't in c-tor. I'm inferring (maybe incorrectly) that the idea is that 
this is effectively letting us multiplex differently-configured 
SOCKS->Tor services on a single port. And/or maybe to multiplex multiple 
data connections over a single SOCKS socket? Is it worth doing these vs 
the alternatives (a listening port per service/object and a socket per 
data stream)? e.g. is this fixing some current resource exhaustion 
issue, or one we expect to be more problematic in arti...?

Maybe worth mentioning the length limit for user and password (255 I 
believe) and that it'll be sufficient (?)

Otherwise LGTM

On 9/9/24 12:04 PM, Nick Mathewson wrote:
> (You can see this proposal rendered at
> https://spec.torproject.org/proposals/351-socks-auth-extensions.html )
> 
> ```
> Filename: 351-socks-auth-extensions.md
> Title: Making SOCKS5 authentication extensions extensible
> Author: Nick Mathewson
> Created: 9 September 2024
> Status: Open
> ```
> 
> ## Introduction
> 
> Currently, Tor implementations use
> the SOCKS5 username and password fields
> to pass parameters for stream isolation.
> (See the `IsolateSocksAuth` flag in the C tor manual,
> and the "Stream isolation" section
> ([forthcoming](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/merge_requests/279))
> in our [socks extensions](../socks-extensions.md) spec.)
> 
>> Tor implementations also support SOCKS4 and SOCKS4a,
>> but they are not affected by this proposal.
>>
>> The C Tor implementation also supports other proxy types besides SOCKS.
>> They are not affected by this proposal
>> because they either have other means to extend their protocols
>> (as with HTTP headers in HTTP CONNECT)
>> or no means to pass extension information
>> (as for DNS proxies, iptables transparent proxies, etc).
> 
> Until now, the rules for interpreting these fields have been simple:
> all values are permitted,
> and streams with unequal values may not share a circuit.
> 
> But in order to integrate SOCKS connections into Arti's RPC protocol,
> we additionally want the ability to send RPC "Object IDs"[^ObjectId]
> in these fields.
> To do this, we will need some way to tell
> when we have received an object ID,
> when we have received an isolation parameter,
> and to avoid confusing them with one another.
> 
>> Note that some confusion will necessarily remain possible:
>> Since current Tor clients are allowed to send any value
>> as SOCKS username and password,
>> any value we specify here will be one which a client in principle
>> _might_ have sent under the old protocol.
> 
> Additionally,
> since we are adding complexity to the interpretation of these fields,
> it's possible we'll want to change this complexity in the future.
> To do this, we'll want a versioning scheme to premit changes.
> 
> ## Proposal
> 
>> If accepted, the following can be incorporated into
>> our [socks extensions](../socks-extensions.md) spec.)
> 
> We support a series of extensions in SOCKS5 Username/Passwords.
> Currently,
> these extensions can encode a stream isolation parameter
> (used to indicate that streams may share a circuit)
> and an RPC object ID
> (used to associate the stream with an entity in an RPC session).
> 
> These extensions are in use whenever the SOCKS5 Username
> begins with the 8-byte "magic" sequence `[3c 74 6f 72 53 30 58 3e]`.
> (This is the ASCII encoding of `<torS0X>`).
> 
> If the SOCKS5 Username/Password fields are present
> but the Username does not begin with this byte sequence,
> it indicates _legacy isolation_.
> New client implementations SHOULD NOT use legacy isolation.
> A SocksPort may be configured to reject legacy isolation.
> 
> When these extensions are in use,
> the next byte of the username after the "magic" sequence
> indicate a version number.
> Any implementation receiving an unrecognized or missing version
> MUST reject the socks request.
> 
> When the version number is `[30]` (the ascii encoding of `0`),
> we interpret the rest of the Username field and the Password field
> as follows:
> 
> The remainder of the Username field encodes an RPC Object ID.
> (If the remainder of the Username field is empty, there is no RPC object.)
> 
> The Password field is stream isolation parameter.
> If it is empty, the stream isolation parameter is an empty string.
> 
> ### Stream isolation
> 
>> This replaces the corresponding part of
>> the "Stream isolation" section
>> ([forthcoming](https://gitlab.torproject.org/tpo/core/torspec/-/merge_requests/279))
>> in our [socks extensions](../socks-extensions.md) spec.
> 
> Two streams are considered to have the same SOCKS authentication values
> if and only if one of the following is true:
> 
> - They are both SOCKS4 or SOCKS4a, with the same user "ID" string.
> - They are both SOCKS5, with no authentication.
> - They are both SOCKS5 with USERNAME/PASSWORD authentication,
>    using legacy isolation parameters,
>    and they have identical usernames
>    and identical passwords.
> - They are both SOCKS5 using the extensions above,
>    with the same stream isolation parameter.
> 
> ### A further extension for integration with Arti SOCKS
> 
>> We should add the following to a specification,
>> though it is not clear whether it goes in the Arti RPC spec
>> or in the socks extensions spec.
> 
> In some cases,
> the RPC Object ID may denote an object
> that already includes information about its intended stream isolation.
> In such cases, the stream isolation MUST be blank.
> Implementations MUST reject non-blank stream isolation in such cases.
> 
> In some cases, the RPC object ID may denote an object
> that already includes information
> about its intended destination address and port.
> In such cases, the destination address MUST be `0.0.0.0` or `::`
> (encoded either as an IPv4 address, an IPv6 address, or a hostname)
> and the destination port MUST be 0.
> Implementations MUST reject other addresses in such cases.
> 
> -----
> 
>> (Here the specifications end.
>> The rest of this proposal is discussion.)
> 
> ## Design considerations
> 
> Our use of SOCKS5 Username/Passwords here
> (as opposed to some other, new authentication type)
> is based on the observation
> that many existing SOCKS5 implementations support Username/Password,
> but comparatively few support arbitrary plug-in authentication.
> 
> The magic "`<torS0X>`" prefix is chosen to be 8 characters long
> so that existing client implementations that generate random strings
> will not often generate it by mistake.
> 
> The version number is chosen to be an ASCII `0` rather than a raw 0 byte,
> for compatibility with existing SOCKS5 client implementations
> that do not support non-ASCII username/password values.
> 
> 
> 
> ## C Tor migration
> 
> When this proposal is accepted,
> we *should* configure C tor to implement it as follows:
> 
> - To reject any SOCKS5 Username starting with `<torS0X>`
>    unless it is exactly `<torS0X>0`.
> 
> This behavior is sufficient to give correct isolation behavior,
> to reject any connection including an RPC object ID,
> and to reject any as-yet-unspecified isolation mechanisms.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> [^ObjectId]: An ObjectId is used in the Arti RPC protocol
>     to associate a SOCKS request with some existing Client object,
>     or with a preexisting DataStream.
> _______________________________________________
> tor-dev mailing list
> tor-dev at lists.torproject.org
> https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev