|
@@ -692,15 +692,17 @@ in Section~\ref{sec:attacks}.
|
|
|
\label{sec:design}
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Tor network is an overlay network; each node is called an onion router
|
|
|
-(OR). Onion routers run on normal computers without needing any special
|
|
|
-privileges. Each OR maintains a long-term TLS connection to every other
|
|
|
-OR (although we look at ways to relax this clique-topology assumption in
|
|
|
+(OR). Onion routers run as normal user-level processes without needing
|
|
|
+any special
|
|
|
+privileges. Currently, each OR maintains a long-term TLS connection
|
|
|
+to every other
|
|
|
+OR. (We examine some ways to relax this clique-topology assumption in
|
|
|
section \ref{subsec:restricted-routes}). A subset of the ORs also act as
|
|
|
directory servers, tracking which routers are currently in the network;
|
|
|
see section \ref{subsec:dirservers} for directory server details. Users
|
|
|
-run local software called an onion proxy (OP) that fetches directories,
|
|
|
-establishes paths (called \emph{virtual circuits}) over the network,
|
|
|
-and handles connections from the user applications. Onion proxies accept
|
|
|
+run local software called an onion proxy (OP) to fetch directories,
|
|
|
+establish paths (called \emph{virtual circuits}) across the network,
|
|
|
+and handle connections from user applications. Onion proxies accept
|
|
|
TCP streams and multiplex them across the virtual circuit. The onion
|
|
|
router on the other side
|
|
|
% I don't mean other side, I mean wherever it is on the circuit. But
|
|
@@ -708,44 +710,51 @@ router on the other side
|
|
|
of the circuit connects to the destinations of
|
|
|
the TCP streams and relays data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Onion routers have three types of keys. The first key is the identity
|
|
|
-(signing) key. An OR uses this key to sign TLS certificates, to sign its
|
|
|
-router descriptor (a summary of its keys, address, bandwidth, exit policy,
|
|
|
-etc), and to sign directories if it is a directory server. Changing the
|
|
|
-identity key of a router is considered equivalent to creating a new
|
|
|
-router. The second key is the onion (decryption) key, which is used
|
|
|
-for decrypting requests from users to set up a circuit and negotiate
|
|
|
-ephemeral keys. Thirdly, each OR shares link keys (generated by TLS)
|
|
|
-with the other ORs it's connected to. We discuss rotating these keys in
|
|
|
-Section \ref{subsec:rotating-keys}.
|
|
|
+Each onion router uses three public keys: a long-term identity key, a
|
|
|
+short-term onion key, and a short-term link key. The identity
|
|
|
+(signing) key is used to sign TLS certificates, to sign its router
|
|
|
+descriptor (a summary of its keys, address, bandwidth, exit policy,
|
|
|
+etc), and to sign directories if it is a directory server. Changing
|
|
|
+the identity key of a router is considered equivalent to creating a
|
|
|
+new router. The onion (decryption) key is used for decrypting requests
|
|
|
+from users to set up a circuit and negotiate ephemeral keys. Finally,
|
|
|
+link keys are used by the TLS protocol when communicating between
|
|
|
+onion routers. We discuss rotating these keys in Section
|
|
|
+\ref{subsec:rotating-keys}.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Section \ref{subsec:cells} discusses the structure of the fixed-size
|
|
|
\emph{cells} that are the unit of communication in Tor. We describe
|
|
|
-in Section \ref{subsec:circuits} how circuits work, and how they are
|
|
|
+in section \ref{subsec:circuits} how virtual circuits are
|
|
|
built, extended, truncated, and destroyed. Section \ref{subsec:tcp}
|
|
|
-discusses the process of opening TCP streams through Tor, and finally
|
|
|
+describes how TCP streams are routed through the network, and finally
|
|
|
Section \ref{subsec:congestion} talks about congestion control and
|
|
|
fairness issues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\SubSection{Cells}
|
|
|
\label{subsec:cells}
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Traffic passes from node to node in fixed-size cells. Each cell is 256
|
|
|
-bytes, and consists of a header and a payload. The header includes the
|
|
|
-circuit identifier (ACI) which specifies which circuit the cell refers to
|
|
|
+% I think we should describe connections before cells. -NM
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Traffic passes from one OR to another, or from a user's OP to an OR,
|
|
|
+in fixed-size cells. Each cell is 256
|
|
|
+bytes, and consists of a header and a payload. The header includes an
|
|
|
+anonymous circuit identifier (ACI) the specifies which circuit the
|
|
|
+cell refers to
|
|
|
(many circuits can be multiplexed over the single TCP connection between
|
|
|
ORs or between an OP and an OR), and a command to describe what to do
|
|
|
-with the cell's payload. Cells are either control cells, meaning they are
|
|
|
-intended to be interpreted by the node that receives them, or relay cells,
|
|
|
-meaning they carry end-to-end stream data. Controls cells can be one of:
|
|
|
-\emph{padding} (currently used for keepalive, but can be used for link
|
|
|
-padding), \emph{create} or \emph{created} (to set up a new circuit),
|
|
|
+with the cell's payload. Cells are either \emph{control} cells, which are
|
|
|
+interpreted by the node that receives them, or \emph{relay} cells,
|
|
|
+whichcarry end-to-end stream data. Controls cells can be one of:
|
|
|
+\emph{padding} (currently used for keepalive, but also usable for link
|
|
|
+padding); \emph{create} or \emph{created} (used to set up a new circuit);
|
|
|
or \emph{destroy} (to tear down a circuit).
|
|
|
+% We need to say that ACIs are connection-specific: each circuit has
|
|
|
+% a different ACI along each connection. -NM
|
|
|
|
|
|
Relay cells have an additional header (the relay header) after the
|
|
|
-cell header, which specifies the stream identifier (many streams can
|
|
|
-be multiplexed over a circuit), an end-to-end checksum for integrity
|
|
|
-checking, the length of the relay payload, and a relay command. Relay
|
|
|
+cell header, containing a the stream identifier (many streams can
|
|
|
+be multiplexed over a circuit); an end-to-end checksum for integrity
|
|
|
+checking; the length of the relay payload; and a relay command. Relay
|
|
|
commands can be one of: \emph{relay
|
|
|
data} (for data flowing down the stream), \emph{relay begin} (to open a
|
|
|
stream), \emph{relay end} (to close a stream), \emph{relay connected}
|
|
@@ -756,36 +765,48 @@ and to acknowledge), \emph{relay truncate} and \emph{relay truncated}
|
|
|
sendme} (used for congestion control), and \emph{relay drop} (used to
|
|
|
implement long-range dummies).
|
|
|
|
|
|
-We will talk more about each of these cell types below.
|
|
|
+We describe each of these cell types in more detail below.
|
|
|
|
|
|
% Nick: should there have been a table here? -RD
|
|
|
+% Maybe. -NM
|
|
|
|
|
|
\SubSection{Circuits and streams}
|
|
|
\label{subsec:circuits}
|
|
|
|
|
|
-While the original Onion Routing design built one circuit for each stream,
|
|
|
-Tor circuits can be used by many streams. Thus because circuits can
|
|
|
-take several tenths of a second to construct due to crypto and network
|
|
|
-latency, users construct circuits preemptively. Users build a new circuit
|
|
|
-periodically (currently every minute) if the previous one has been used,
|
|
|
-and expire old used circuits that are no longer in use. Thus even very
|
|
|
-active users spend a negligible amount of time and CPU in building
|
|
|
-circuits, but only a limited number of requests can be linked to each
|
|
|
-other by a given exit node. Also, because circuits are built in the
|
|
|
-background, an already failed router never affects the user experience.
|
|
|
-
|
|
|
-Users set up circuits incrementally, negotiating a symmetric key with
|
|
|
-each hop one at a time. To create a new circuit, the user (call her
|
|
|
-Alice) sends a \emph{create} cell to the first node in her chosen
|
|
|
-path. The payload is the first half of the Diffie-Hellman handshake,
|
|
|
-encrypted to the onion key of the OR (call him Bob). Bob responds with a
|
|
|
-\emph{created} cell with the second half of the DH handshake, along with
|
|
|
-a hash of $K=g^{xy}$. The goal is to get unilateral entity authentication
|
|
|
-(Alice knows she's handshaking with Bob, Bob doesn't care who it is ---
|
|
|
-recall that Alice has no key and is trying to remain anonymous) and
|
|
|
-unilateral key authentication (Alice and Bob agree on a key, and Alice
|
|
|
-knows Bob is the only other person who could know it --- if he is
|
|
|
-honest, etc.). We also want perfect forward secrecy, key freshness, etc.
|
|
|
+% I think when we say ``the user,'' maybe we should say ``the user's OP.''
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The original Onion Routing design built one circuit for each
|
|
|
+TCP stream. Because building a circuit can take several tenths of a
|
|
|
+second (due to public-key cryptography delays and network latency),
|
|
|
+this design imposed high costs on applications like web browsing that
|
|
|
+open many TCP streams.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+In Tor, each circuit can be shared by many TCP streams. To avoid
|
|
|
+delays, users construct circuits preemptively. To limit linkability
|
|
|
+among the streams, users rotate connections by building a new circuit
|
|
|
+periodically (currently every minute) if the previous one has been
|
|
|
+used, and expire old used circuits that are no longer in use. Thus
|
|
|
+even very active users spend a negligible amount of time and CPU in
|
|
|
+building circuits, but only a limited number of requests can be linked
|
|
|
+to each other by a given exit node. Also, because circuits are built
|
|
|
+in the background, failed routers do not affects user experience.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+\subsubsection{Constructing a circuit}
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Users construct each incrementally, negotiating a symmetric key with
|
|
|
+each hop one at a time. To begin creating a new circuit, the user
|
|
|
+(call her Alice) sends a \emph{create} cell to the first node in her
|
|
|
+chosen path. The cell's payload is the first half of the
|
|
|
+Diffie-Hellman handshake, encrypted to the onion key of the OR (call
|
|
|
+him Bob). Bob responds with a \emph{created} cell containg the second
|
|
|
+half of the DH handshake, along with a hash of the negotiated key
|
|
|
+$K=g^{xy}$. This protocol tries to achieve unilateral entity
|
|
|
+authentication (Alice knows she's handshaking with Bob, Bob doesn't
|
|
|
+care who is opening the circuit---Alice has no key and is trying to
|
|
|
+remain anonymous); unilateral key authentication (Alice and Bob
|
|
|
+agree on a key, and Alice knows Bob is the only other person who could
|
|
|
+know it). We also want perfect forward
|
|
|
+secrecy, key freshness, etc.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\begin{equation}
|
|
|
\begin{aligned}
|
|
@@ -805,6 +826,9 @@ traditional Dolev-Yao model.
|
|
|
% cite Cathy? -RD
|
|
|
% did I use the buzzwords correctly? -RD
|
|
|
|
|
|
+% Hm. I think that this paragraph could go earlier in expository
|
|
|
+% order: we describe how to build whole circuit, then explain the
|
|
|
+% protocol in more detail. -NM
|
|
|
To extend a circuit past the first hop, Alice sends a \emph{relay extend}
|
|
|
cell to the last node in the circuit, specifying the address of the new
|
|
|
OR and an encrypted $g^x$ for it. That node copies the half-handshake
|
|
@@ -813,6 +837,7 @@ circuit. When it responds with a \emph{created} cell, the penultimate OR
|
|
|
copies the payload into a \emph{relay extended} cell and passes it back.
|
|
|
% Nick: please fix my "that OR" pronouns -RD
|
|
|
|
|
|
+\subsubsection{Relay cells}
|
|
|
Once Alice has established the circuit (so she shares a key with each
|
|
|
OR on the circuit), she can send relay cells.
|
|
|
The stream ID in the relay header indicates to which stream the cell belongs.
|
|
@@ -835,7 +860,7 @@ in the circuit receives the destroy cell, closes all open streams on
|
|
|
that circuit, and passes a new destroy cell forward. But since circuits
|
|
|
can be built incrementally, they can also be torn down incrementally:
|
|
|
Alice can send a relay truncate cell to a node along the circuit. That
|
|
|
-node will send a destroy cell forward, and reply with an acknowledgement
|
|
|
+node will send a destroy cell forward, and reply with an acknowledgment
|
|
|
(relay truncated). Alice might truncate her circuit so she can extend it
|
|
|
to different nodes without signaling to the first few nodes (or somebody
|
|
|
observing them) that she is changing her circuit. That is, nodes in the
|
|
@@ -890,31 +915,33 @@ but are still willing to read.
|
|
|
|
|
|
\SubSection{Integrity checking on streams}
|
|
|
|
|
|
-In the old Onion Routing design, traffic was vulnerable to a malleability
|
|
|
-attack: without integrity checking, an adversary could
|
|
|
-guess some of the plaintext of a cell, xor it out, and xor in his own
|
|
|
-plaintext. Even an external adversary could do this despite the link
|
|
|
-encryption!
|
|
|
+In the old Onion Routing design, traffic was vulnerable to a
|
|
|
+malleability attack: an attacker could make changes to an encrypted
|
|
|
+cell to create corresponding changes to the data leaving the network.
|
|
|
+(Even an external adversary could do this, despite link encryption!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
-For example, an adversary could change a create cell to a
|
|
|
-destroy cell; change the destination address in a relay begin cell
|
|
|
-to the adversary's webserver; or change a user on an ftp connection
|
|
|
-from typing ``dir'' to typing ``delete *''. Any node or observer along
|
|
|
-the path can introduce such corruption in a stream.
|
|
|
+This weakness allowed an adversary to change a create cell to a destroy
|
|
|
+cell; change the destination address in a relay begin cell to the
|
|
|
+adversary's webserver; or change a user on an ftp connection from
|
|
|
+typing ``dir'' to typing ``delete *''. Any node or observer along the
|
|
|
+path could introduce such corruption in a stream.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Tor solves this malleability attack with respect to external adversaries
|
|
|
-simply by using TLS. Addressing the insider malleability attack is more
|
|
|
-complex.
|
|
|
+Tor prevents external adversaries by mounting this attack simply by
|
|
|
+using TLS. Addressing the insider malleability attack, however, is
|
|
|
+more complex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
-Rather than doing integrity checking of the relay cells at each hop
|
|
|
-(like Mixminion \cite{minion-design}), which would increase packet size
|
|
|
+Rather than doing integrity checking of the relay cells at each hop,
|
|
|
+which would increase packet size
|
|
|
by a function of path length\footnote{This is also the argument against
|
|
|
using recent cipher modes like EAX \cite{eax} --- we don't want the added
|
|
|
message-expansion overhead at each hop, and we don't want to leak the path
|
|
|
-length (or pad to some max path length).}, we choose to accept passive
|
|
|
-timing attacks, and do integrity
|
|
|
+length (or pad to some max path length).}, we choose to
|
|
|
+% accept passive timing attacks,
|
|
|
+% (How? I don't get it. Do we mean end-to-end traffic
|
|
|
+% confirmation attacks? -NM)
|
|
|
+and preform integrity
|
|
|
checking only at the edges of the circuit. When Alice negotiates a key
|
|
|
-with that hop, they both start a SHA-1 with some derivative of that key,
|
|
|
+with the exit hop, they both start a SHA-1 with some derivative of that key,
|
|
|
thus starting out with randomness that only the two of them know. From
|
|
|
then on they each incrementally add all the data bytes flowing across
|
|
|
the stream to the SHA-1, and each relay cell includes the first 4 bytes
|