Hi All,
Please find below and attached a proposal: Rendezvous Single Onion Services.
This is an updated and expanded version of "Direct Onion Services: Fast-but-not-hidden services”. It also borrows heavily from "Single Onion Services" (Proposal #252).
The proposal is available in the branch “feature-17178-rsos” at https://github.com/teor2345/torspec.git https://github.com/teor2345/torspec.git as torspec/proposals/ideas/xxx-rend-single-onion.txt
Work on this proposal is being tracked in trac ticket #17178 at https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/17178 https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/17178
There is a basic implementation in the branch “feature-17178-rsos” at https://github.com/teor2345/tor.git https://github.com/teor2345/tor.git
This can be tested with the chutney branch "feature-17178-rsos” at https://github.com/teor2345/chutney.git https://github.com/teor2345/chutney.git using the command: src/test/test-network.sh --flavor rsos-min
Regards,
Tim
----- Filename: xxx-rend-single-onion.txt Title: Rendezvous Single Onion Services Author: Tim Wilson-Brown, John Brooks, Aaron Johnson, Rob Jansen, George Kadianakis, Paul Syverson, Roger Dingledine Created: 2015-10-17 Status: Draft
1. Overview
Rendezvous single onion services are an alternative design for single onion services, which trade service-side location privacy for improved performance, reliability, and scalability.
Rendezvous single onion services have a .onion address identical to any other onion service. The descriptor contains the same information as the existing double onion (hidden) service descriptors. The introduction point and rendezvous protocols occur as in double onion services, with one modification: one-hop connections are made from the onion server to the introduction and rendezvous points.
This proposal is a revision of the unnumbered proposal Direct Onion Services: Fast-but-not-hidden services by Roger Dingledine, and George Kadianakis at https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-dev/2015-April/008625.html
It incorporates much of the discussion around hidden services since April 2015, including content from Single Onion Services (Proposal #252) by John Brooks, Paul Syverson, and Roger Dingledine.
2. Motivation
Rendezvous single onion services are best used by sites which: * Don’t require location anonymity * Would appreciate lower latency or self-authenticated addresses * Would like to work with existing tor clients and relays * Can’t accept connections to an open ORPort
Rendezvous single onion services have a few benefits over double onion services:
* Connection latency is lower, as one-hop circuits are built to the introduction and rendezvous points, rather than three-hop circuits * Stream latency is reduced on a four-hop circuit * Less Tor network capacity is consumed by the service, as there are fewer hops (4 rather than 6) between the client and server via the rendezvous point
Rendezvous single onion services have a few benefits over single onion services:
* A rendezvous single onion service can load-balance over multiple rendezvous backends (see proposal #255) * A rendezvous single onion service doesn't need an accessible ORPort (it works behind a NAT, and in server enclaves that only allow outward connections) * A rendezvous single onion service is compatible with existing tor clients, hidden service directories, introduction points, and rendezvous points
Rendezvous single onion services have a few drawbacks over single onion services:
* Connection latency is higher, as one-hop circuits are built to the introduction and rendezvous points. Single onion services perform one extend to the single onion service’s ORPort only
It should also be noted that, while single onion services receive many incoming connections from different relays, rendezvous single onion services make many outgoing connections to different relays. This should be taken into account when planning the connection capacity of the infrastructure supporting the onion service.
Rendezvous single onion services are not location hidden on the service side, but clients retain all of the benefits and privacy of onion services. (The rationale for the 'single' and 'double' nomenclature is described in section 7.4 of proposal #252.)
We believe that it is important for the Tor community to be aware of the alternative single onion service designs, so that we can reach consensus on the features and tradeoffs of each design. However, we recognise that each additional flavour of onion service splits the anonymity set of onion service users. Therefore, it may be best for user anonymity that not all designs are adopted, or that mitigations are implemented along with each additional flavour. (See sections 8 & 9 for a further discussion.)
3. Onion descriptors
The rendezvous single onion descriptor format is identical to the double onion descriptor format.
4. Reaching a rendezvous single onion service as a client
Clients reach rendezvous single onion services in an identical fashion to double onion services. The rendezvous design means that clients do not know whether they are talking to a double or rendezvous single onion service, unless that service tells them. (This may be a security issue.)
However, the use of a four-hop path between client and rendezvous single onion service may be statistically distinguishable. (See section 8 for further discussion of security issues.)
(Please note that this proposal follows the hop counting conventions in the tor source code. A circuit with a single connections between the client and the endpoint is one-hop, a circuit with 4 connections (and 3 nodes) between the client and endpoint is four-hop.)
5. Publishing a rendezvous single onion service
To act as a rendezvous single onion service, a tor instance (or cooperating group of tor instances) must:
* Publish onion descriptors in the same manner as any onion service, using three-hop circuits. This avoids service blocking by IP address, proposal #224 (next-generation hidden services) avoids blocking by onion address. * Perform the rendezvous protocol in the same manner as a double onion service, but make the intro and rendezvous connections one-hop. (This may allow intro and rendezvous points to block the service.)
5.1. Configuration options
5.1.1 RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer
The tor instance operating a rendezvous single onion service must make one-hop circuits to the introduction and rendezvous points:
RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer 0|1 If set, make one-hop circuits between the Rendezvous Single Onion Service server, and the introduction and rendezvous points. This option makes every onion service instance hosted by this tor instance a Rendezvous Single Onion Service. (Default: 0)
Because of the grave consequences of misconfiguration here, we have added ‘NonAnonymous’ to the name of the torrc option. Furthermore, Tor MUST issue a startup warning message to operators of the onion service if this feature is enabled. [Should the name start with ‘NonAnonymous’ instead?]
As RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer modifies the behaviour of every onion service on a tor instance, it is impossible to run hidden (double onion) services and rendezvous single onion services on the same tor instance. This is considered a feature, as it prevents hidden services from being discovered via rendezvous single onion services on the same tor instance.
5.1.2 Recommended Additional Options: Correctness
Based on the experiences of Tor2Web with one-hop paths, operators should consider using the following options with every rendezvous single onion service, and every single onion service:
UseEntryGuards 0 One-hop paths do not use entry guards. This also deactivates the entry guard pathbias code, which is not compatible with one-hop paths. Entry guards are a security measure against Sybil attacks. Unfortunately, they also act as the bottleneck of busy onion services and overload those Tor relays.
LearnCircuitBuildTimeout 0 Learning circuit build timeouts is incompatible with one-hop paths. It also creates additional, unnecessary connections.
Perhaps these options should be set automatically on (rendezvous) single onion services. Tor2Web sets these options automatically: UseEntryGuards 0 LearnCircuitBuildTimeout 0
5.1.3 Recommended Additional Options: Performance
LongLivedPorts The default LongLivedPorts setting creates additional, unnecessary connections. This specifies no long-lived ports (the empty list).
PredictedPortsRelevanceTime 0 seconds The default PredictedPortsRelevanceTime setting creates additional, unnecessary connections.
RendPostPeriod 0 seconds This option typically hides the startup time of a hidden service by randomly posting over a 2 hour period. Since single onion services value speed over anonymity, they can post descriptors straight away. (Actually, 30 seconds after they bootstrap, for descriptor stability.)
However, we do not recommend setting the following option to 1, unless bug #17359 is resolved so tor onion services can bootstrap without predicted circuits.
__DisablePredictedCircuits 0 This option disables all predicted circuits. It is equivalent to: LearnCircuitBuildTimeout 0 LongLivedPorts PredictedPortsRelevanceTime 0 seconds And turning off hidden service server preemptive circuits, which is currently unimplemented (#17360)
5.1.3 Recommended Additional Options: Security
We recommend that no other services are run on a rendezvous single onion service tor instance. Since tor runs as a client (and not a relay) by default, rendezvous single onion service operators should set:
SocksPort 0 Disallow connections from client applications to the tor network via this tor instance.
ClientOnly 1 Even if the defaults file configures this instance to be a relay, never relay any traffic or serve any descriptors.
5.2. Publishing descriptors
A single onion service must publish descriptors in the same manner as any onion service, as defined by rend-spec.
5.3. Authorization
Client authorization for a rendezvous single onion service is possible via the same methods used for double onion services.
6. Related Proposals, Tools, and Features
6.1. Load balancing
High capacity services can distribute load and implement failover by: * running multiple instances that publish to the same onion service directories, * publishing descriptors containing multiple introduction points (OnionBalance), * publishing different introduction points to different onion service directories (OnionBalance upcoming(?) feature), * handing off rendezvous to a different tor instance via control port messages (proposal #255), or by a combination of these methods.
6.2. Ephemeral single onion services (ADD_ONION)
The ADD_ONION control port command could be extended to support ephemerally configured rendezvous single onion services. Given that RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer modifies the behaviour of all onion services on a tor instance, if it is set, any ephemerally configured onion service should become a rendezvous single onion service.
6.3. Proposal 224 ("Next-Generation Hidden Services")
This proposal is compatible with proposal 224, with onion services acting just like a next-generation hidden service, but making one-hop paths to the introduction and rendezvous points.
6.4. Proposal 246 ("Merging Hidden Service Directories and Intro Points")
This proposal is compatible with proposal 246. The onion service will publish its descriptor to the introduction points in the same manner as any other onion service. Clients will use the merged hidden service directory and introduction point just as they do for other onion services.
6.5. Proposal 252 ("Single Onion Services")
This proposal is compatible with proposal 252. The onion service will publish its descriptor to the introduction points in the same manner as any other onion service. Clients can then choose to extend to the single onion service, or continue with the rendezvous protocol.
Running a rendezvous single onion service and single onion service allows older clients to connect via rendezvous, and newer clients to connenct via extend. This is useful for the transition period where not all clients support single onion services.
6.5. Proposal 255 ("Hidden Service Load Balancing")
This proposal is compatible with proposal 255. The onion service will perform the rendezvous protocol in the same manner as any other onion service. Controllers can then choose to handoff the rendezvous point connection to another tor instance, which should also be configured as a rendezvous single onion service.
7. Considerations
7.1 Modifying RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer at runtime
Implementations should not reuse introduction points or introduction point circuits if the value of RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer is different than it was when the introduction point was selected. This is because these circuits will have an undesirable length.
There is specific code in tor that preserves introduction points on a HUP, if RendezvousSingleOnionServiceNonAnonymousServer has changed, all circuits should be closed, and all introduction points must be discarded.
7.2 Delaying connection expiry
Tor clients typically expire connections much faster than tor relays [citation needed].
(Rendezvous) single onion service operators may find that keeping connections open saves on connection latency. However, it may also place an additional load on the service. (This could be implemented by increasing the configured connection expiry time.)
7.3. (No) Benefit to also running a Tor relay
In tor Trac ticket #8742, running a relay and hidden onion service on the same tor instance was disabled for security reasons. While there may be benefits to running a relay on the same instance as a rendezvous single onion service (existing connections mean lower latency, it helps the tor network overall), a security analysis of this configuration has not yet been performed. In addition, a potential drawback is overloading a busy single onion service.
6.4 Predicted circuits
We should look whether we can optimize further the predicted circuits that Tor makes as a onion service for this mode.
8. Security Implications
8.1 Splitting the Anonymity Set
Each additional flavour of onion service, and each additional externally visible onion service feature, provides oportunities for fingerprinting.
Also, each additional type of onion service shrinks the anonymity set for users of double onion (hidden) services who require server location anonymity. These users benefit from the cover provided by current users of onion services, who use them for client anonymity, self-authentication, NAT-punching, or other benefits.
For this reason, features that shrink the double onion service anonymity set should be carefully considered. The benefits and drawbacks of additional features also often depend on a particular threat model.
It may be that a significant number of users and sites adopt (rendezvous) single onion services due to their benefits. This could increase the traffic on the tor network, therefore increasing anonymity overall. However, the unique behaviour of each type of onion service may still be distinguishable from both the client and server ends of the connection.
8.2 Hidden Service Designs can potentially be more secure
As a side-effect, by optimizing for performance in this feature, it allows us to lean more heavily towards security decisions for regular onion services.
8.3 One-hop onion service paths may encourage more attacks
There's a possible second-order effect here since both encrypted services and hidden services will have foo.onion addresses and it's not clear based on the address whether the service will be hidden -- if *some* .onion addresses are easy to track down, are we encouraging adversaries to attack all rendezvous points just in case?
9. Further Work
Further proposals or research could attempt to mitigate the anonymity-set splitting described in section 8. Here are some initial ideas.
9.1 Making Client Exit connections look like Client Onion Service Connections
A mitigation to this fingerprinting is to make each (or some) exit connections look like onion service connections. This provides cover for particular types of onion service connections. Unfortunately, it is not possible to make onion service connections look like exit connections, as there are no suitable dummy servers to exit to on the Internet.
9.1.1 Making Client Exit connections perform Descriptor Downloads
(Some) exit connections could perform a dummy descriptor download. (However, descriptors for recently accessed onion services are cached, so dummy downloads should only be performed occasionally.)
Exit connections already involve a four-hop "circuit" to the server (including the connection between the exit and the server on the Internet). The server on the Internet is not included in the consensus. Therefore, this mitigation would effectively cover single onion services which are not relays.
9.1.2 Making Client Exit connections perform the Rendezvous Protocol
(Some) exit connections could perform a dummy rendezvous protocol.
Exit connections already involve a four-hop "circuit" to the server (including the connection between the exit and the server on the Internet). Therefore, this mitigation would effectively cover rendezvous single onion services, as long as a dummy descriptor download was also performed occasionally.
9.1.3 Making Single Onion Service rendezvous points perform name resolution
Currently, Exits perform DNS name resolution, and changing this behaviour would cause unacceptable connection latency. Therefore, we could make onion service connections look like exit connections by making the rendezvous point do name resolution (that is, descriptor fetching), and, if needed, the introduction part of the protocol. This could potentially *reduce* the latency of single onion service connections, depending on the length of the paths used by the rendezvous point.
However, this change makes rendezvous points almost as powerful as Exits, a careful security analysis will need to be performed before this is implemented.
There is also a design issue with rendezvous name resolution: a client wants to leave resolution (descriptor download) to the RP, but it doesn't know whether it can use the exit-like protocol with an RP until it has downloaded the descriptor. This might mean that single onion services of both flavours need a different address style or address namespace. We could use .single.onion or something. (This would require an update to the HSDir code.)
9.2 Performing automated and common queries over onion services
Tor could create cover traffic for a flavour of onion service by performing automated or common queries via an onion service of that type. In addition, onion service-based checks have security benefits over DNS-based checks. See Genuine Onion, Syverson and Boyce, 2015, at http://www.nrl.navy.mil/itd/chacs/syverson-genuine-onion-simple-fast-flexibl...
Here are some examples of automated queries that could be performed over an onion service:
9.2.1 torcheck over onion service
torcheck ("Congratulations! This browser is configured to use Tor.") could be retrieved from an onion service.
Incidentally, this would resolve the exitmap issues in #17297, but it would also fail to check that exit connections work, which is important for many Tor Browser users.
9.2.2 Tor Browser version checks over onion service
Running tor browser version checks over an onion service seems to be an excellent use-case for onion services. It would also have the Tor Project "eating its own dogfood", that is, using onion services for its essential services.
9.2.3 Tor Browser downloads over onion service
Running tor browser downloads over an onion service might require some work on the onion service codebase to support high loads, load-balancing, and failover. It is a good use case for a (rendezvous) single onion service, as the traffic over the tor network is only slightly higher than for Tor Browser downloads over tor. (4 hops for [R]SOS, 3 hops for Exit.)
9.2.4 SSL Observatory submissions over onion service
HTTPS certificates could be submitted to HTTPS Everywhere's SSL Observatory over an onion service.
This option is disabled in Tor Browser by default. Perhaps some users would be more comfortable enabling submission over an onion service, due to the additional security benefits. -----