|
@@ -0,0 +1,111 @@
|
|
|
|
+Filename: 127-dirport-mirrors-downloads.txt
|
|
|
|
+Title: Relaying dirport requests to Tor download site
|
|
|
|
+Version: $Revision: 11988 $
|
|
|
|
+Last-Modified: $Date: 2007-10-16 12:59:42 -0400 (Tue, 16 Oct 2007) $
|
|
|
|
+Author: Roger Dingledine
|
|
|
|
+Created: 2007-12-02
|
|
|
|
+Status: Needs-Research
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+1. Overview
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Some countries and networks block connections to the Tor website. As
|
|
|
|
+ time goes by, this will remain a problem and it may even become worse.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ We have a big pile of mirrors (google for "Tor mirrors"), but few of
|
|
|
|
+ our users think to try a search like that. Also, many of these mirrors
|
|
|
|
+ might be automatically blocked since their pages contain words that
|
|
|
|
+ might cause them to get blocked. And lastly, we can imagine a future
|
|
|
|
+ where the blockers are aware of the mirror list too.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Here we describe a new set of URLs for Tor's DirPort that will relay
|
|
|
|
+ connections from users to the official Tor download site. Rather than
|
|
|
|
+ trying to cache a bunch of new Tor packages (which is a hassle in terms
|
|
|
|
+ of keeping them up to date, and a hassle in terms of drive space used),
|
|
|
|
+ we instead just proxy the requests directly to Tor's /dist page.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Specifically, we should support
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ GET /tor/dist/$1
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ and
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ GET /tor/website/$1
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+2. Linked connections
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Check out the connection_ap_make_link() function, as called from
|
|
|
|
+ directory.c. Tor clients use this to create a "fake" socks connection
|
|
|
|
+ back to themselves, and then they attach a directory request to it,
|
|
|
|
+ so they can launch directory fetches via Tor. We could piggyback on
|
|
|
|
+ this feature.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+3. One-hop circuits or three-hop circuits?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ We could relay the connections directly to the download site -- but
|
|
|
|
+ this produces recognizable outgoing traffic on the bridge or cache's
|
|
|
|
+ network, which will probably surprise our nice volunteers. (Is this
|
|
|
|
+ a good enough reason to discard the direct connection idea?)
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ But we still have a choice: should we do a one-hop begindir-style
|
|
|
|
+ connection to the mirror site (make a one-hop circuit to it, then send a
|
|
|
|
+ 'begindir' cell down the circuit), or should we do a normal three-hop
|
|
|
|
+ anonymized connection?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ If these mirrors are mainly bridges, doing a one-hop connection creates
|
|
|
|
+ another way to enumerate bridges. That would argue for three-hop. On
|
|
|
|
+ the other hand, downloading a 10+ megabyte installer through a normal
|
|
|
|
+ Tor circuit can't be fun. But if you're already getting throttled a
|
|
|
|
+ lot because you're in the "relayed traffic" bucket, you're going to
|
|
|
|
+ have to accept a slow transfer anyway. So three-hop it is.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Speaking of which, we would want to label this connection
|
|
|
|
+ as "relay" traffic for the purposes of rate limiting; see
|
|
|
|
+ connection_counts_as_relayed_traffic() and or_conn->client_used. This
|
|
|
|
+ will be a bit tricky though, because it uses the bridge's guards.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+4. Scanning resistance
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ One other goal we'd like to achieve, or at least not hinder, is making
|
|
|
|
+ it hard to scan large swaths of the Internet to look for responses
|
|
|
|
+ that indicate a bridge.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ In general this is a really hard problem, so it's not critical that
|
|
|
|
+ we solve it here. But we can note that some bridges should open their
|
|
|
|
+ DirPort (and offer this functionality), and others shouldn't. Then some
|
|
|
|
+ bridges provide a download mirror while others are scanning-resistant.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+5. Integrity checking
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ If we serve this stuff in plaintext from the bridge, anybody in between
|
|
|
|
+ the user and the bridge can intercept and modify it. The bridge can too.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ If we do an anonymized three-hop connection, the exit node can also
|
|
|
|
+ intercept and modify the exe it sends back.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Are we setting ourselves up for rogue exit relays, or rogue bridges,
|
|
|
|
+ that trojan our users?
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Answer #1: Users need to do pgp signature checking. Not a very good
|
|
|
|
+ answer, a) because it's complex, and b) because they don't know the
|
|
|
|
+ right signatures in the first place.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Answer #2: The mirrors could exit from a specific Tor relay, using the
|
|
|
|
+ '.exit' notation. This would make connections a bit more brittle, but
|
|
|
|
+ would resolve the rogue exit relay issue. We could even round-robin
|
|
|
|
+ among several, and the list could be dynamic -- for example, all the
|
|
|
|
+ relays with an Authority flag that allow exits to the Tor website.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Answer #3: We could suggest that users only use trusted bridges for
|
|
|
|
+ fetching a copy of Tor. Hopefully they heard about the bridge from a
|
|
|
|
+ trusted source rather than from the adversary.
|
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
|
+ Answer #4: What if the adversary is trawling for Tor downloads by
|
|
|
|
+ network signature -- either by looking for known bytes in the binary,
|
|
|
|
+ or by looking for "GET /tor/dist/"? It would be nice to encrypt the
|
|
|
|
+ connection from the bridge user to the bridge. And we can! The bridge
|
|
|
|
+ already supports TLS. Rather than initiating a TLS renegotiation after
|
|
|
|
+ connecting to the ORPort, the user should actually request a URL. Then
|
|
|
|
+ the ORPort can either pass the connection off as a linked conn to the
|
|
|
|
+ dirport, or renegotiate and become a Tor connection, depending on how
|
|
|
|
+ the client behaves.
|
|
|
|
+
|