2011-12-01 14:42:38 +00:00
|
|
|
Filename: 192-store-bridge-information.txt
|
|
|
|
Title: Automatically retrieve and store information about bridges
|
|
|
|
Author: Sebastian Hahn
|
|
|
|
Created: 16-Nov-2011
|
2018-06-03 18:17:00 +00:00
|
|
|
Status: Obsolete
|
2011-12-01 14:42:38 +00:00
|
|
|
Target: 0.2.[45].x
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Overview:
|
|
|
|
Currently, tor already stores some information about the bridges it is
|
|
|
|
configured to use locally, but doesn't make great use of the stored
|
|
|
|
data. This data is the Tor configuration information about the bridge
|
|
|
|
(IP address, port, and optionally fingerprint) and the bridge descriptor
|
|
|
|
which gets stored along with the other descriptors a Tor client fetches,
|
|
|
|
as well as an "EntryGuard" line in the state file. That line includes
|
|
|
|
the Tor version we used to add the bridge, and a slightly randomized
|
|
|
|
timestamp (up to a month in the past of the real date). The descriptor
|
|
|
|
data also includes some more accurate timestamps about when the
|
|
|
|
descriptor was fetched.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The information we give out about bridges via bridgedb currently only
|
|
|
|
includes the IP address and port, because giving out the fingerprint as
|
|
|
|
well might mean that Tor clients make direct connections to the bridge
|
|
|
|
authority, since we didn't design Tor's UpdateBridgesFromAuthority
|
|
|
|
behaviour correctly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Motivation:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The only way to let Tor know about a change affecting the bridge (IP
|
|
|
|
address or port change) is to either ask the bridge authority directly,
|
|
|
|
or reconfigure Tor. The former requires making a non-anonymized direct
|
|
|
|
connection to the bridge authority Tonga and asking it for the current
|
|
|
|
descriptor of the bridge with a given fingerprint - this is unsafe and
|
|
|
|
also requires prior knowledge of the fingerprint. The latter requires
|
|
|
|
user intervention, first to learn that there was an update and second to
|
|
|
|
actually teach Tor about the change.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is way too complicated for most users, and should be unnecessary
|
|
|
|
while the user has at least one bridge that remains working: Tonga can
|
|
|
|
give out bridge descriptors when asked for the descriptor for a certain
|
|
|
|
fingerprint, and Tor clients learn the fingerprint either from their
|
|
|
|
torrc file or from the first connection they make to a bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For some users, however, this option is not what they want: They might
|
|
|
|
use private bridges or have special security concerns, which would make
|
|
|
|
them want to connect to the IP addresses specified in their
|
|
|
|
configuration only, and not tell Tonga about the set of bridges they
|
|
|
|
know about, even through a Tor circuit. Also see
|
|
|
|
https://blog.torproject.org/blog/different-ways-use-bridge for more
|
|
|
|
information about the different types of bridge users.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Design:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tor should provide a new configuration option that allows bridge users
|
|
|
|
to indicate that they wish to contact Tonga anonymously and learn about
|
|
|
|
updates for the bridges that they know about, but can't currently reach.
|
|
|
|
Once those updates have been received, the clients would then hold on to
|
|
|
|
the new information in their state file, and use it across restarts for
|
|
|
|
connection attempts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The option UpdateBridgesFromAuthority should be removed or recycled for
|
|
|
|
this purpose, as it is currently dangerous to set (it makes direct
|
|
|
|
connections to the bridge authority, thus leaking that a user is about
|
|
|
|
to use bridges). Recycling the option is probably the better choice,
|
|
|
|
because current users of the option get a surprising and never useful
|
|
|
|
behaviour. On the other hand, users who downgrade their Tors might get
|
|
|
|
the old behaviour by accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If configured with this option, tor would make an anonymized connection
|
|
|
|
to Tonga to ask for the descriptors of bridges that it cannot currently
|
|
|
|
connect to, once every few hours. Making more frequent requests would
|
|
|
|
likely not help, as bridge information doesn't typically change that
|
|
|
|
frequently, and may overload Tonga.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This information needs to be stored in the state file:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- An exact copy of the Bridge stanza in the torrc file, so that tor can
|
|
|
|
detect when the bridge is unconfigured/the configuration is changed
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The IP address, port, and fingerprint we last used when making a
|
|
|
|
successful connection to the bridge, if this differs from/supplements
|
|
|
|
the configured data.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- The IP address, port, and fingerprint we learned from the bridge
|
|
|
|
authority, if this differs from both the configured data and the data
|
|
|
|
we used for the last successful connection.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We don't store more data in the state file to avoid leaking too much if
|
|
|
|
the state file falls into the hands of an adversary.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Security implications:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Storing sensitive data on disk is risky when the computer one uses gets
|
|
|
|
into the wrong hands, and state file entries can be used to identify
|
|
|
|
times the user was online. This is already a problem for the Bridge
|
|
|
|
lines in a user's configuration file, but by storing more information
|
|
|
|
about bridges some timings can be deduced.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another risk is that this allows long-term tracking of users when the
|
|
|
|
set of bridges a user knows about is known to the attacker, and the set
|
|
|
|
is unique. This is not very hard to achieve for bridgedb, as users
|
|
|
|
typically make requests to it non-anomymized and bridgedb can
|
|
|
|
selectively pick bridges to report. By combining the data about
|
|
|
|
descriptor fetches on Tonga and this fingerprint, a usage pattern can be
|
|
|
|
established. Also, bridgedb could give out a made-up fingerprint to a
|
|
|
|
user that requested bridges, thus easily creating a unique set.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Users of private bridges should not set this option, as it will leak the
|
|
|
|
fingerprints of their bridges to Tonga. This is not a huge concern, as
|
|
|
|
Tonga doesn't know about those descriptors, but private bridge users
|
|
|
|
will likely want to avoid leaking the existence of their bridge. We
|
|
|
|
might want to figure out a way to indicate that a bridge is private on
|
|
|
|
the Bridge line in the configuration, so fetching the descriptor from
|
|
|
|
Tonga is disabled for those automatically. This warrants more discussion
|
|
|
|
to find a solution that doesn't require bridge users to understand the
|
|
|
|
trade-offs of setting a configuration option.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One idea is to indicate that a bridge is private by a special flag in
|
|
|
|
its bridge descriptor, so clients can avoid leaking those to the bridge
|
|
|
|
authority automatically. Also, Bridge lines for private bridges
|
|
|
|
shouldn't include the fingerprint so that users don't accidentally leak
|
|
|
|
the fingerprint to the bridge authority before they have talked to the
|
|
|
|
bridge.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Specification:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No change/addition to the current specification is necessary, as the
|
|
|
|
data that gets stored at clients is not covered by the specification.
|
|
|
|
This document is supposed to serve as a basis for discussion and to
|
|
|
|
provide hints for implementors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Compatibility:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tonga is already set up to send out descriptors requested by clients, so
|
|
|
|
the bridge authority side doesn't need any changes. The new
|
|
|
|
configuration options governing the behaviour of Tor would be
|
|
|
|
incompatible with previous versions, so the torrc needs to be adapted.
|
|
|
|
The state file changes should not affect older versions.
|