| 123456789101112131415161718192021222324252627282930313233343536373839404142434445464748495051525354555657585960616263646566676869707172737475767778798081828384858687888990919293949596979899100101102103104105106107108109110111112113114115116117118119120121122123124125126127128129130131132133134135136137138139140141142143144145146147148149150151152153154155156157158159160161162163164165166167168169170171172173174175176177178179180181 | 
							- Design For A Tor DNS-based Exit List
 
- Status:
 
-   This is a suggested design for a DNS Exit List (DNSEL) for Tor exit nodes.
 
-   See http://exitlist.torproject.org/ for an implementation.
 
- Why?
 
-   It's useful for third parties to be able to tell when a given connection
 
-   is coming from a Tor exit node.  Potential applications range from
 
-   "anonymous user" cloaks on IRC networks like oftc, to networks like
 
-   Freenode that apply special authentication rules to users from these
 
-   IPs, to systems like Wikipedia that may want to make a priority of
 
-   _unblocking_ shared IPs more liberally than non-shared IPs, since shared
 
-   IPs presumably have non-abusive users as well as abusive ones.
 
-   Since Tor provides exit policies, not every Tor server will connect to
 
-   every address:port combination on the Internet.  Unless you're trying to
 
-   penalize hosts for supporting anonymity, it makes more sense to answer
 
-   the fine-grained question "which Tor servers will connect to _me_?" than
 
-   the coarse-grained question "which Tor servers exist?"  The fine-grained
 
-   approach also helps Tor server ops who share an IP with their Tor
 
-   server: if they want to access a site that blocks Tor users, they
 
-   can exclude that site from their exit policy, and the site can learn
 
-   that they won't send it anonymous connections.
 
-   Tor already ships with a tool (the "contrib/exitlist" script) to
 
-   identify which Tor nodes might open anonymous connections to any given
 
-   exit address.  But this is a bit tricky to set up, so only sites like
 
-   Freenode and OFTC that are dedicated to privacy use it.
 
-   Conversely, providers of some DNSEL implementations are providing
 
-   coarse-grained lists of Tor hosts -- sometimes even listing servers that
 
-   permit no exit connections at all.  This is rather a problem, since
 
-   support for DNSEL is pretty ubiquitous.
 
- How?
 
-   Keep a running Tor instance, and parse the cached-routers and
 
-   cached-routers.new files as new routers arrive.  To tell whether a given
 
-   server allows connections to a certain address:port combo, look at the
 
-   definitions in dir-spec.txt or follow the logic of the current exitlist
 
-   script. If bug 405 is still open when you work on this
 
-   (https://bugs.torproject.org/flyspray/index.php?do=details&id=405), you'll
 
-   probably want to extend it to look at only the newest descriptor for
 
-   each server, so you don't use obsolete exit policy data.
 
-   FetchUselessDescriptors would probably be a good torrc option to enable.
 
-   If you're also running a directory cache, you get extra-fresh
 
-   information.
 
- The DNS interface
 
-   Standard DNSEL, if I understand right, looks like this: There's some
 
-   authoritative name server for foo.example.com.  You want to know if
 
-   1.2.3.4 is in the list, so you query for an A record for
 
-   4.3.2.1.foo.example.com.  If the record exists and has the value
 
-   127.0.0.2[DNSBL-EMAIL], 1.2.3.4 is in the list.  If you get an NXDOMAIN
 
-   error, 1.2.3.4 is not in the list.  If you ask for a domain name outside
 
-   of the foo.example.com zone, you get a Server Failure error[RFC 1035].
 
-   Assume that the DNSEL answers queries authoritatively for some zone,
 
-   torhosts.example.com.  Below are some queries that could be supported,
 
-   though some of them are possibly a bad idea.
 
-   Query type 1: "General IP:Port"
 
-     Format:
 
-         {IP1}.{port}.{IP2}.ip-port.torhosts.example.com
 
-     Rule:
 
-         Iff {IP1} is a Tor server that permits connections to {port} on
 
-         {IP2}, then there should be an A record with the value 127.0.0.2.
 
-     Example:
 
-         "1.0.0.10.80.4.3.2.1.ip-port.torhosts.example.com" should have the
 
-         value 127.0.0.2 if and only if there is a Tor server at 10.0.0.1
 
-         that allows connections to port 80 on 1.2.3.4.
 
-     Example use:
 
-         I'm running an IRC server at w.x.y.z:9999, and I want to tell
 
-         whether an incoming connection is from a Tor server.  I set
 
-         up my IRC server to give a special mask to any user coming from
 
-         an IP listed in 9999.z.y.x.w.ip-port.torhosts.example.com.
 
-         Later, when I get a connection from a.b.c.d, my ircd looks up
 
-         "d.c.b.a.9999.z.y.x.w.ip-port.torhosts.example.com" to see
 
-         if it's a Tor server that allows connections to my ircd.
 
-   Query type 2: "IP-port group"
 
-     Format:
 
-         {IP}.{listname}.list.torhosts.example.com
 
-     Rule:
 
-         Iff this Tor server is configured with an IP:Port list named
 
-         {listname}, and {IP} is a Tor server that permits connections to
 
-         any member of {listname}, then there exists an A record.
 
-     Example:
 
-         Suppose torhosts.example.com has a list of IP:Port called "foo".
 
-         There is an A record for 4.3.2.1.foo.list.torhosts.example.com
 
-         if and only if 1.2.3.4 is a Tor server that permits connections
 
-         to one of the addresses in list "foo".
 
-     Example use:
 
-         Suppose torhosts.example.com has a list of hosts in "examplenet",
 
-         a popular IRC network.  Rather than having them each set up to
 
-         query the appropriate "ip-port" list, they could instead all be
 
-         set to query a central examplenet.list.torhosts.example.com.
 
-     Problems:
 
-         We'd be better off if each individual server queried about hosts
 
-         that allowed connections to itself.  That way, if I wanted to
 
-         allow anonymous connections to foonet, but I wanted to be able to
 
-         connect to foonet from my own IP without being marked, I could add
 
-         just a few foonet addresses to my exit policy.
 
-   Query type 3: "My IP, with port"
 
-     Format:
 
-         {IP}.{port}.me.torhosts.example.com
 
-     Rule:
 
-         An A record exists iff there is a tor server at {IP} that permits
 
-         connections to {port} on the host that requested the lookup.
 
-     Example:
 
-         "4.3.2.1.80.me.torhosts.example.com" should have an A record if
 
-         and only if there is a Tor server at 1.2.3.4 that allows
 
-         connections to port 80 of the querying host.
 
-     Example use:
 
-         Somebody wants to set up a quick-and-dirty Tor detector for a
 
-         single webserver: just point them at 80.me.torhosts.example.com.
 
-     Problem:
 
-         This would be easiest to use, but DNS gets in the way. If you
 
-         create DNS records that give different results depending on who is
 
-         asking, you mess up caching.  There could be a fix here, but might
 
-         not.
 
-   RECOMMENDATION: Just build ip-port for now, and see what demand is
 
-   like.  There's no point in building mechanisms nobody wants.
 
- Web interface:
 
-   Should provide the same data as the dns interface.
 
- Other issues:
 
-   After a Tor server op turns off their server, it stops publishing server
 
-   descriptors. We should consider that server's IP address to still
 
-   represent a Tor node until 48 hours after its last descriptor was
 
-   published.
 
-   30-60 minutes is not an unreasonable TTL.
 
-   There could be some demand for address masks and port lists. Address
 
-   masks wider than /8 make me nervous here, as do port ranges.
 
-   We need an answer for what to do about hosts which exit from different
 
-   IPs than their advertised IP. One approach would be for the DNSEL
 
-   to launch periodic requests to itself through all exit servers whose
 
-   policies allow it -- and then see where the requests actually come from.
 
- References:
 
-   [DNSBL-EMAIL] Levine, J., "DNS Based Blacklists and Whitelists for
 
-   E-Mail", http://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-irtf-asrg-dnsbl-02, November
 
-   2005.
 
-   [RFC 1035] Mockapetris, P., "Domain Names - Implementation and
 
-   Specification", RFC 1035, November 1987.
 
 
  |