|
@@ -0,0 +1,81 @@
|
|
|
|
|
+Filename: xxx-unnamed-flag.txt
|
|
|
|
|
+Title: Network status entries need a new Unnamed flag
|
|
|
|
|
+Version: $Revision$
|
|
|
|
|
+Last-Modified: $Date$
|
|
|
|
|
+Author: Roger Dingledine
|
|
|
|
|
+Created: 04-Oct-2007
|
|
|
|
|
+Status: Open
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+Overview:
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ Tor's directory authorities can give certain servers a "Named" flag
|
|
|
|
|
+ in the network-status entry, when they want to bind that nickname to
|
|
|
|
|
+ that identity key. This allows clients to specify a nickname rather
|
|
|
|
|
+ than an identity fingerprint and still be certain they're getting the
|
|
|
|
|
+ "right" server. As dir-spec.txt describes it,
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ Name X is bound to identity Y if at least one binding directory lists
|
|
|
|
|
+ it, and no directory binds X to some other Y'.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ In practice, clients can refer to servers by nickname whether they are
|
|
|
|
|
+ Named or not; if they refer to nicknames that aren't Named, a complaint
|
|
|
|
|
+ shows up in the log asking them to use the identity key in the future
|
|
|
|
|
+ --- but it still works.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ The problem? Imagine a Tor server with nickname Bob. Bob and his
|
|
|
|
|
+ identity fingerprint are registered in tor26's approved-routers
|
|
|
|
|
+ file, but none of the other authorities registered him. Imagine
|
|
|
|
|
+ there are several other unregistered servers also with nickname Bob
|
|
|
|
|
+ ("the imposters").
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ While Bob is online, all is well: a) tor26 gives a Named flag to
|
|
|
|
|
+ the real one, and refuses to list the other ones; and b) the other
|
|
|
|
|
+ authorities list the imposters but don't give them a Named flag. Clients
|
|
|
|
|
+ who have all the network-statuses can compute which one is the real Bob.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ But when the real Bob disappears and his descriptor expires? tor26
|
|
|
|
|
+ continues to refuse to list any of the imposters, and the other
|
|
|
|
|
+ authorities continue to list the imposters. Clients don't have any
|
|
|
|
|
+ idea that there exists a Named Bob, so they can ask for server Bob and
|
|
|
|
|
+ get one of the imposters. (A warning will also appear in their log,
|
|
|
|
|
+ but so what.)
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+The stopgap solution:
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ tor26 should start accepting and listing the imposters, but it should
|
|
|
|
|
+ assign them a new flag: "Unnamed". This would produce three cases from
|
|
|
|
|
+ the client perspective:
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ 1) A unique Bob is listed as Named, and nobody lists that Bob as
|
|
|
|
|
+ Unnamed. Clients can refer to Bob by nickname and be confident.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ 2) Every Bob is listed by some authority as Unnamed. Clients asking
|
|
|
|
|
+ for Bob should get a warning in the log and their request should fail
|
|
|
|
|
+ ("no such router").
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ 3) At least one Bob is not listed by any authorities as Unnamed, but
|
|
|
|
|
+ there is no unique Named Bob. In this case we do what we did before
|
|
|
|
|
+ (currently "warn but allow it").
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+Problems not solved by this stopgap:
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ If tor26 is the only authority that provides a binding for Bob, when
|
|
|
|
|
+ tor26 goes offline we're back in our previous situation -- the imposters
|
|
|
|
|
+ can be referenced with a mere ignorable warning in the client's log.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ If some other authority Names a different Bob, and tor26 goes offline,
|
|
|
|
|
+ then that other Bob becomes the unique Named Bob.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ So be it. We should try to solve these one day, but there's no clear way
|
|
|
|
|
+ to do it that doesn't destroy usability in other ways, and if we want
|
|
|
|
|
+ to get the Unnamed flag into v3 network statuses we should add it soon.
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+Other benefits:
|
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
|
+ This new flag will allow people to operate servers that happen to have
|
|
|
|
|
+ the same nickname as somebody who registered their server two years ago
|
|
|
|
|
+ and left soon after. Right now there are dozens of nicknames that are
|
|
|
|
|
+ registered on all three binding directory authorities, yet haven't been
|
|
|
|
|
+ running for years. While it's bad that these nicknames are effectively
|
|
|
|
|
+ blacklisted from the network, the really bad part is that this logic
|
|
|
|
|
+ is really unintuitive to prospective new server operators.
|
Nick Mathewson