A coupld of forthcoming papers are using "Lyrebird" as if it were the
name of a protocol, a synonym for obfs4:
https://arxiv.org/abs/2405.13310
> Obfs4/Lyrebird is based on Scramblesuit [56].
https://eprint.iacr.org/2024/1086
> The obfs4/lyrebird protocol, specified in [60], is separated into two
> distinct phases:
This, to me, seems like an incorrect use of terminology. I am planning
to tell the authors so. But I just want to check that my understanding
matches the consensus opinion, which I would summarize thus:
There is no such thing as a "lyrebird" protocol. Lyrebird is a program
that implements several protocols, including obfs3, obfs4, and meek.
Lyrebird is a fork of obfs4proxy, which likewise is a program, not a
protocol. Just as there is no "lyrebird" protocol, there is no
"obfs4proxy" protocol; these are names of programs that both happen to
implement an identical protocol, which protocol is called obfs4.
Do you agree?
Tor renaming its fork of obfs4proxy Lyrebird was an effort to reduce
confusion. I worry that we will have years of confusion to deal with if
the mistaken assumption lyrebird ≈ obfs4 (rather than lyrebird ≈
obfs4proxy) gets consecrated in print.
Hi!
I have talked with some of you in the IRC meetings this year, but I have
not updated
the mailing list on my work. A little over a month ago I completed my
Master's thesis
on "Reducing distinguishability of DTLS for usage in Snowflake", at
the Norwegian
University of Science (NTNU) in the Department of Information Security and
Communication Technology, supervised by David Palma.
The thesis can be found on my website: https://theodorsm.net/thesis
Here is a trimmed abstract:
" [...] We have seen that censors have been able to do so [blocking
Snowflake]
by fingerprinting the DTLS implementation that is produced by the
Pion library used by Snowflake. The aim of this thesis is to reduce the
distinguisability of said DTLS library. We developed a tool named, dfind [1]
for analyzing and finding passive field-based fingerprints of DTLS. This
tool was validated using a data set with known fingerprints, and found that
the extensions field was especially vulnerable for identification. To combat
such fingerprints, we implemented covertDTLS [2], a Go library inspired
by uTLS. Our module extends the Pion DTLS library with handshake
hooking to offer mimicry and randomization features. To ensure that
mimicking remains up-to-date, we developed a novel continuous delivery
workflow for generating fresh DTLS-WebRTC handshakes from popular
browsers. Using covertDTLS with Snowflake resulted in us not being able
to find any fingerprints."
[1]: https://github.com/theodorsm/dfind
[2]: https://github.com/theodorsm/covert-dtls
I have only tested covertDTLS in a messy fork of Snowflake, which had
promising
results. I am currently working on upgrading the Pion DTLS and WebRTC
version
used by Snowflake to the most recent version to integrate covertDTLS
properly.
In addition, I plan to condense my thesis into a paper, thus making the
work more
accessible. I would greatly appreciate any feedback on the thesis so that I
can
address those in the paper. I am also open to collaborating on the paper,
feel free to reach out if you have some ideas to be explored.
Cheers,
Theodor Signebøen Midtlien
Hi,
snowflake-01 has lately been seeing more traffic than usual and yesterday
was really odd.
Since the beginning of July this year CPU utilisation has usually been
exceeding 85% for between one and two hours, ending about midnight CEST.
Yesterday we saw that for five and a half hours ending around 18:00 CEST.
Any idea why this is happening? I did see something about snowflake-02
moving somewhere. Can this be related? Is the move done? How did it go?
2 Aug 2024 18:05:53 netdata(a)snowflake-01.torproject.net:
snowflake-01 recovered
10min cpu usage (was warning for 5 hours and 32 minutes) average CPU
utilization over the last 10 minutes (excluding iowait, nice and steal)
(was warning for 5 hours and 32 minutes)
Chart : system.cpu
Family : cpu
Severity: Recovered from WARNING
URL :
https://api.netdata.cloud/alarms/redirect?agentId=47d61784-c899-11ec-b119-3…
Source : 4(a)/usr/lib/netdata/conf.d/health.d/cpu.conf
Date : 2024-08-02T15:50:50+0000
Notification generated on snowflake-01
Evaluated Expression : $this > (($status >= $WARNING) ? (75) : (85))
Expression Variables : [ $this = 74.9016704 ] [ $status = 1 ] [ $WARNING
= 3 ]
The host has 0 WARNING and 0 CRITICAL alarm(s) raised.