|
|
@@ -0,0 +1,121 @@
|
|
|
+Filename: xxx-verify-tor-usage.txt
|
|
|
+Title: Help users to verify they are using Tor
|
|
|
+Version: $Revision$
|
|
|
+Last-Modified: $Date$
|
|
|
+Author: Steven J. Murdoch
|
|
|
+Created: 2008-01-25
|
|
|
+Status: Needs-Revision
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Overview:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Websites for checking whether a user is accessing them via Tor are a
|
|
|
+ very helpful aid to configuring web browsers correctly. Existing
|
|
|
+ solutions have both false positives and false negatives when
|
|
|
+ checking if Tor is being used. This proposal will discuss how to
|
|
|
+ modify Tor so as to make testing more reliable.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Motivation:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Currently deployed websites for detecting Tor use work by comparing
|
|
|
+ the client IP address for a request with a list of known Tor nodes.
|
|
|
+ This approach is generally effective, but suffers from both false
|
|
|
+ positives and false negatives.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ If a user has a Tor exit node installed, or just happens to have
|
|
|
+ been allocated an IP address previously used by a Tor exit node, any
|
|
|
+ web requests will be incorrectly flagged as coming from Tor. If any
|
|
|
+ customer of an ISP which implements a transparent proxy runs an exit
|
|
|
+ node, all other users of the ISP will be flagged as Tor users.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Conversely, if the exit node chosen by a Tor user has not yet been
|
|
|
+ recorded by the Tor checking website, requests will be incorrectly
|
|
|
+ flagged as not coming via Tor.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ The only reliable way to tell whether Tor is being used or not is for
|
|
|
+ the Tor client to flag this to the browser.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Proposal:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ A DNS name should be registered and point to an IP address
|
|
|
+ controlled by the Tor project and likely to remain so for the
|
|
|
+ useful lifetime of a Tor client. A web server should be placed
|
|
|
+ at this IP address.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Tor should be modified to treat requests to port 80, at the
|
|
|
+ specified DNS name or IP address specially. Instead of opening a
|
|
|
+ circuit, it should respond to a HTTP request with a helpful web
|
|
|
+ page:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ - If the request to open a connection was to the domain name, the web
|
|
|
+ page should state that Tor is working properly.
|
|
|
+ - If the request was to the IP address, the web page should state
|
|
|
+ that there is a DNS-leakage vulnerability.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ If the request goes through to the real web server, the page
|
|
|
+ should state that Tor has not been set up properly.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Extensions:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Identifying proxy server:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ If needed, other applications between the web browser and Tor (e.g.
|
|
|
+ Polipo and Privoxy) could piggyback on the same mechanism to flag
|
|
|
+ whether they are in use. All three possible web pages should include
|
|
|
+ a machine-readable placeholder, into which another program could
|
|
|
+ insert their own message.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ For example, the webpage returned by Tor to indicate a successful
|
|
|
+ configuration could include the following HTML:
|
|
|
+ <h2>Connection chain</h2>
|
|
|
+ <ul>
|
|
|
+ <li>Tor 0.1.2.14-alpha
|
|
|
+ <!-- Tor Connectivity Check: success -->
|
|
|
+ </ul>
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ When the proxy server observes this string, in response to a request
|
|
|
+ for the Tor connectivity check web page, it would prepend it's own
|
|
|
+ message, resulting in the following being returned to the web
|
|
|
+ browser:
|
|
|
+ <h2>Connection chain
|
|
|
+ <ul>
|
|
|
+ <li>Tor 0.1.2.14-alpha
|
|
|
+ <li>Polipo version 1.0.4
|
|
|
+ <!-- Tor Connectivity Check: success -->
|
|
|
+ </ul>
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ Checking external connectivity:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ If Tor intercepts a request, and returns a response itself, the user
|
|
|
+ will not actually confirm whether Tor is able to build a successful
|
|
|
+ circuit. It may then be advantageous to include an image in the web
|
|
|
+ page which is loaded from a different domain. If this is able to be
|
|
|
+ loaded then the user will know that external connectivity through
|
|
|
+ Tor works.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Security and resiliency implications:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ What attacks are possible?
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ If the IP addressed used for this feature moves there will be two
|
|
|
+ consequences:
|
|
|
+ - A new website at this IP address will remain inaccessible over
|
|
|
+ Tor
|
|
|
+ - Tor users who are leaking DNS will be informed that Tor is not
|
|
|
+ working, rather than that it is active but leaking DNS
|
|
|
+ We should thus attempt to find an IP address which we reasonably
|
|
|
+ belive can remain static.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Open issues:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ If a Tor version which does not support this extra feature is used,
|
|
|
+ the webpage returned will indicate that Tor is not being used. Can
|
|
|
+ this be safely fixed?
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Related work:
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+ The proposed mechanism is very similar to config.privoxy.org. The
|
|
|
+ most significant difference is that if the web browser is
|
|
|
+ misconfigured, Tor will only get an IP address. Even in this case,
|
|
|
+ Tor should be able to respond with a webpage to notify the user of how
|
|
|
+ to fix the problem. This also implies that Tor must be told of the
|
|
|
+ special IP address, and so must be effectively permanent.
|