mirror of
https://github.com/torproject/torspec.git
synced 2024-12-17 23:46:48 +00:00
841b9176d6
Re-number misnumbered spec sections. No more having to refer to "the first of two section 6.1s." svn:r9683
406 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
406 lines
18 KiB
Plaintext
$Id$
|
|
|
|
Tor Path Specification
|
|
|
|
Roger Dingledine
|
|
Nick Mathewson
|
|
|
|
Note: This is an attempt to specify Tor as currently implemented. Future
|
|
versions of Tor will implement improved algorithms.
|
|
|
|
This document tries to cover how Tor chooses to build circuits and assign
|
|
streams to circuits. Other implementations MAY take other approaches, but
|
|
implementors should be aware of the anonymity and load-balancing implications
|
|
of their choices.
|
|
|
|
THIS SPEC ISN'T DONE OR CORRECT YET.
|
|
|
|
1. General operation
|
|
|
|
Tor begins building circuits as soon as it has enough directory
|
|
information to do so (see section 5.1 of dir-spec.txt). Some circuits are
|
|
built preemptively because we expect to need them later (for user
|
|
traffic), and some are built because of immediate need (for user traffic
|
|
that no current circuit can handle, for testing the network or our
|
|
reachability, and so on).
|
|
|
|
When a client application creates a new stream (by opening a SOCKS
|
|
connection or launching a resolve request), we attach it to an appropriate
|
|
open circuit if one exists, or wait if an appropriate circuit is
|
|
in-progress. We launch a new circuit only
|
|
if no current circuit can handle the request. We rotate circuits over
|
|
time to avoid some profiling attacks.
|
|
|
|
To build a circuit, we choose all the nodes we want to use, and then
|
|
construct the circuit. Sometimes, when we want a circuit that ends at a
|
|
given hop, and we have an appropriate unused circuit, we "cannibalize" the
|
|
existing circuit and extend it to the new terminus.
|
|
|
|
These processes are described in more detail below.
|
|
|
|
This document describes Tor's automatic path selection logic only; path
|
|
selection can be overridden by a controller (with the EXTENDCIRCUIT and
|
|
ATTACHSTREAM commands). Paths constructed through these means may
|
|
violate some constraints given below.
|
|
|
|
1.1. Terminology
|
|
|
|
A "path" is an ordered sequence of nodes, not yet built as a circuit.
|
|
|
|
A "clean" circuit is one that has not yet been used for any traffic.
|
|
|
|
A "fast" or "stable" or "valid" node is one that has the 'Fast' or
|
|
'Stable' or 'Valid' flag
|
|
set respectively, based on our current directory information. A "fast"
|
|
or "stable" circuit is one consisting only of "fast" or "stable" nodes.
|
|
|
|
In an "exit" circuit, the final node is chosen based on waiting stream
|
|
requests if any, and in any case it avoids nodes with exit policy of
|
|
"reject *:*". An "internal" circuit, on the other hand, is one where
|
|
the final node is chosen just like a middle node (ignoring its exit
|
|
policy).
|
|
|
|
A "request" is a client-side stream or DNS resolve that needs to be
|
|
served by a circuit.
|
|
|
|
A "pending" circuit is one that we have started to build, but which has
|
|
not yet completed.
|
|
|
|
A circuit or path "supports" a request if it is okay to use the
|
|
circuit/path to fulfill the request, according to the rules given below.
|
|
A circuit or path "might support" a request if some aspect of the request
|
|
is unknown (usually its target IP), but we believe the path probably
|
|
supports the request according to the rules given below.
|
|
|
|
2. Building circuits
|
|
|
|
2.1. When we build
|
|
|
|
2.1.1. Clients build circuits preemptively
|
|
|
|
When running as a client, Tor tries to maintain at least a certain
|
|
number of clean circuits, so that new streams can be handled
|
|
quickly. To increase the likelihood of success, Tor tries to
|
|
predict what circuits will be useful by choosing from among nodes
|
|
that support the ports we have used in the recent past (by default
|
|
one hour). Specifically, on startup Tor tries to maintain one clean
|
|
fast exit circuit that allows connections to port 80, and at least
|
|
two fast clean stable internal circuits in case we get a resolve
|
|
request or hidden service request (at least three if we _run_ a
|
|
hidden service).
|
|
|
|
After that, Tor will adapt the circuits that it preemptively builds
|
|
based on the requests it sees from the user: it tries to have two fast
|
|
clean exit circuits available for every port seen within the past hour
|
|
(each circuit can be adequate for many predicted ports -- it doesn't
|
|
need two separate circuits for each port), and it tries to have the
|
|
above internal circuits available if we've seen resolves or hidden
|
|
service activity within the past hour. If there are 12 or more clean
|
|
circuits open, it doesn't open more even if it has more predictions.
|
|
|
|
Only stable circuits can "cover" a port that is listed in the
|
|
LongLivedPorts config option. Similarly, hidden service requests
|
|
to ports listed in LongLivedPorts make us create stable internal
|
|
circuits.
|
|
|
|
Note that if there are no requests from the user for an hour, Tor
|
|
will predict no use and build no preemptive circuits.
|
|
|
|
The Tor client SHOULD NOT store its list of predicted requests to a
|
|
persistent medium.
|
|
|
|
2.1.2. Clients build circuits on demand
|
|
|
|
Additionally, when a client request exists that no circuit (built or
|
|
pending) might support, we create a new circuit to support the request.
|
|
For exit connections, we pick an exit node that will handle the
|
|
most pending requests (choosing arbitrarily among ties), launch a
|
|
circuit to end there, and repeat until every unattached request
|
|
might be supported by a pending or built circuit. For internal
|
|
circuits, we pick an arbitrary acceptable path, repeating as needed.
|
|
|
|
In some cases we can reuse an already established circuit if it's
|
|
clean; see Section 2.3 (cannibalizing circuits) for details.
|
|
|
|
2.1.3. Servers build circuits for testing reachability and bandwidth
|
|
|
|
Tor servers test reachability of their ORPort once they have
|
|
successfully built a circuit (on start and whenever their IP address
|
|
changes). They build an ordinary fast internal circuit with themselves
|
|
as the last hop. As soon as any testing circuit succeeds, the Tor
|
|
server decides it's reachable and is willing to publish a descriptor.
|
|
|
|
We launch multiple testing circuits (one at a time), until we
|
|
have NUM_PARALLEL_TESTING_CIRC (4) such circuits open. Then we
|
|
do a "bandwidth test" by sending a certain number of relay drop
|
|
cells down each circuit: BandwidthRate * 10 / CELL_NETWORK_SIZE
|
|
total cells divided across the four circuits, but never more than
|
|
CIRCWINDOW_START (1000) cells total. This exercises both outgoing and
|
|
incoming bandwidth, and helps to jumpstart the observed bandwidth
|
|
(see dir-spec.txt).
|
|
|
|
Tor servers also test reachability of their DirPort once they have
|
|
established a circuit, but they use an ordinary exit circuit for
|
|
this purpose.
|
|
|
|
2.1.4. Hidden-service circuits
|
|
|
|
See section 4 below.
|
|
|
|
2.1.5. Rate limiting of failed circuits
|
|
|
|
If we fail to build a circuit N times in a X second period (see Section
|
|
2.3 for how this works), we stop building circuits until the X seconds
|
|
have elapsed.
|
|
XXXX
|
|
|
|
2.1.6. When to tear down circuits
|
|
|
|
XXXX
|
|
|
|
2.2. Path selection and constraints
|
|
|
|
We choose the path for each new circuit before we build it. We choose the
|
|
exit node first, followed by the other nodes in the circuit. All paths
|
|
we generate obey the following constraints:
|
|
- We do not choose the same router twice for the same path.
|
|
- We do not choose any router in the same family as another in the same
|
|
path.
|
|
- We do not choose more than one router in a given /16 subnet
|
|
(unless EnforceDistinctSubnets is 0).
|
|
- We don't choose any non-running or non-valid router unless we have
|
|
been configured to do so. By default, we are configured to allow
|
|
non-valid routers in "middle" and "rendezvous" positions.
|
|
- If we're using Guard nodes, the first node must be a Guard (see 5
|
|
below)
|
|
- XXXX Choosing the length
|
|
|
|
For circuits that do not need to be not "fast", when choosing among
|
|
multiple candidates for a path element, we choose randomly.
|
|
|
|
For "fast" circuits, we pick a given router as an exit with probability
|
|
proportional to its advertised bandwidth [the smaller of the 'rate' and
|
|
'observed' arguments to the "bandwidth" element in its descriptor]. If a
|
|
router's advertised bandwidth is greater than MAX_BELIEVABLE_BANDWIDTH
|
|
(1.5 MB/s), we clip to that value.
|
|
|
|
For non-exit positions on "fast" circuits, we pick routers as above, but
|
|
we weight the clipped advertised bandwidth of Exit-flagged nodes depending
|
|
on the fraction of bandwidth available from non-Exit nodes. Call the
|
|
total clipped advertised bandwidth for Exit nodes under consideration E,
|
|
and the total clipped advertised bandwidth for non-Exit nodes under
|
|
consideration N. If E<N/2, we do not consider Exit-flagged nodes.
|
|
Otherwise, we weight their bandwidth with the factor (E-N/2)/(N+E-N/2) ==
|
|
(2E - N)/(2E + N). This ensures that bandwidth is evenly distributed over
|
|
nodes in 3-hop paths.
|
|
|
|
Additionally, we may be building circuits with one or more requests in
|
|
mind. Each kind of request puts certain constraints on paths:
|
|
|
|
- All service-side introduction circuits and all rendezvous paths
|
|
should be Stable.
|
|
- All connection requests for connections that we think will need to
|
|
stay open a long time require Stable circuits. Currently, Tor decides
|
|
this by examining the request's target port, and comparing it to a
|
|
list of "long-lived" ports. (Default: 21, 22, 706, 1863, 5050,
|
|
5190, 5222, 5223, 6667, 6697, 8300.)
|
|
- DNS resolves require an exit node whose exit policy is not equivalent
|
|
to "reject *:*".
|
|
- Reverse DNS resolves require a version of Tor with advertised eventdns
|
|
support (available in Tor 0.1.2.1-alpha-dev and later).
|
|
- All connection requests require an exit node whose exit policy
|
|
supports their target address and port (if known), or which "might
|
|
support it" (if the address isn't known). See 2.2.1.
|
|
- Rules for Fast? XXXXX
|
|
|
|
2.2.1. Choosing an exit
|
|
|
|
If we know what IP address we want to connect to or resolve, we can
|
|
trivially tell whether a given router will support it by simulating
|
|
its declared exit policy.
|
|
|
|
Because we often connect to addresses of the form hostname:port, we do not
|
|
always know the target IP address when we select an exit node. In these
|
|
cases, we need to pick an exit node that "might support" connections to a
|
|
given address port with an unknown address. An exit node "might support"
|
|
such a connection if any clause that accepts any connections to that port
|
|
precedes all clauses (if any) that reject all connections to that port.
|
|
|
|
Unless requested to do so by the user, we never choose an exit server
|
|
flagged as "BadExit" by more than half of the authorities who advertise
|
|
themselves as listing bad exits.
|
|
|
|
2.2.2. User configuration
|
|
|
|
Users can alter the default behavior for path selection with configuration
|
|
options.
|
|
|
|
- If "ExitNodes" is provided, then every request requires an exit node on
|
|
the ExitNodes list. (If a request is supported by no nodes on that list,
|
|
and StrictExitNodes is false, then Tor treats that request as if
|
|
ExitNodes were not provided.)
|
|
|
|
- "EntryNodes" and "StrictEntryNodes" behave analogously.
|
|
|
|
- If a user tries to connect to or resolve a hostname of the form
|
|
<target>.<servername>.exit, the request is rewritten to a request for
|
|
<target>, and the request is only supported by the exit whose nickname
|
|
or fingerprint is <servername>.
|
|
|
|
2.3. Cannibalizing circuits
|
|
|
|
If we need a circuit and have a clean one already established, in
|
|
some cases we can adapt the clean circuit for our new
|
|
purpose. Specifically,
|
|
|
|
For hidden service interactions, we can "cannibalize" a clean internal
|
|
circuit if one is available, so we don't need to build those circuits
|
|
from scratch on demand.
|
|
|
|
We can also cannibalize clean circuits when the client asks to exit
|
|
at a given node -- either via the ".exit" notation or because the
|
|
destination is running at the same location as an exit node.
|
|
|
|
|
|
2.4. Handling failure
|
|
|
|
If an attempt to extend a circuit fails (either because the first create
|
|
failed or a subsequent extend failed) then the circuit is torn down and is
|
|
no longer pending. (XXXX really?) Requests that might have been
|
|
supported by the pending circuit thus become unsupported, and a new
|
|
circuit needs to be constructed.
|
|
|
|
If a stream "begin" attempt fails with an EXITPOLICY error, we
|
|
decide that the exit node's exit policy is not correctly advertised,
|
|
so we treat the exit node as if it were a non-exit until we retrieve
|
|
a fresh descriptor for it.
|
|
|
|
XXXX
|
|
|
|
3. Attaching streams to circuits
|
|
|
|
When a circuit that might support a request is built, Tor tries to attach
|
|
the request's stream to the circuit and sends a BEGIN, BEGIN_DIR,
|
|
or RESOLVE relay
|
|
cell as appropriate. If the request completes unsuccessfully, Tor
|
|
considers the reason given in the CLOSE relay cell. [XXX yes, and?]
|
|
|
|
|
|
After a request has remained unattached for SocksTimeout (2 minutes
|
|
by default), Tor abandons the attempt and signals an error to the
|
|
client as appropriate (e.g., by closing the SOCKS connection).
|
|
|
|
XXX Timeouts and when Tor auto-retries.
|
|
* What stream-end-reasons are appropriate for retrying.
|
|
|
|
If no reply to BEGIN/RESOLVE, then the stream will timeout and fail.
|
|
|
|
4. Hidden-service related circuits
|
|
|
|
XXX Tracking expected hidden service use (client-side and hidserv-side)
|
|
|
|
5. Guard nodes
|
|
|
|
We use Guard nodes (also called "helper nodes" in the literature) to
|
|
prevent certain profiling attacks. Here's the risk: if we choose entry and
|
|
exit nodes at random, and an attacker controls C out of N servers
|
|
(ignoring advertised bandwidth), then the
|
|
attacker will control the entry and exit node of any given circuit with
|
|
probability (C/N)^2. But as we make many different circuits over time,
|
|
then the probability that the attacker will see a sample of about (C/N)^2
|
|
of our traffic goes to 1. Since statistical sampling works, the attacker
|
|
can be sure of learning a profile of our behavior.
|
|
|
|
If, on the other hand, we picked an entry node and held it fixed, we would
|
|
have probability C/N of choosing a bad entry and being profiled, and
|
|
probability (N-C)/N of choosing a good entry and not being profiled.
|
|
|
|
When guard nodes are enabled, Tor maintains an ordered list of entry nodes
|
|
as our chosen guards, and store this list persistently to disk. If a Guard
|
|
node becomes unusable, rather than replacing it, Tor adds new guards to the
|
|
end of the list. When it comes time to choose an entry, Tor chooses at
|
|
random from among the first NumEntryGuards (default 3) usable guards on the
|
|
list. If there are not at least 2 usable guards on the list, Tor adds
|
|
routers until there are, or until there are no more usable routers to add.
|
|
|
|
A guard is unusable if any of the following hold:
|
|
- it is not marked as a Guard by the networkstatuses,
|
|
- it is not marked Valid (and the user hasn't set AllowInvalid entry)
|
|
- it is not marked Running
|
|
- Tor couldn't reach it the last time it tried to connect
|
|
|
|
A guard is unusable for a particular circuit if any of the rules for path
|
|
selection in 2.2 are not met. In particular, if the circuit is "fast"
|
|
and the guard is not Fast, or if the circuit is "stable" and the guard is
|
|
not Stable, or if the guard has already been chosen as the exit node in
|
|
that circuit, Tor can't use it as a guard node for that circuit.
|
|
|
|
If the guard is excluded because of its status in the networkstatuses for
|
|
over 30 days, Tor removes it from the list entirely, preserving order.
|
|
|
|
If Tor fails to connect to an otherwise usable guard, it retries
|
|
periodically: every hour for six hours, every 4 hours for 3 days, every
|
|
18 hours for a week, and every 36 hours thereafter. Additionally, Tor
|
|
retries unreachable guards the first time it adds a new guard to the list,
|
|
since it is possible that the old guards were only marked as unreachable
|
|
because the network was unreachable or down.
|
|
|
|
Tor does not add a guard persistently to the list until the first time we
|
|
have connected to it successfully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
X. Old notes
|
|
|
|
X.1. Do we actually do this?
|
|
|
|
How to deal with network down.
|
|
- While all helpers are down/unreachable and there are no established
|
|
or on-the-way testing circuits, launch a testing circuit. (Do this
|
|
periodically in the same way we try to establish normal circuits
|
|
when things are working normally.)
|
|
(Testing circuits are a special type of circuit, that streams won't
|
|
attach to by accident.)
|
|
- When a testing circuit succeeds, mark all helpers up and hold
|
|
the testing circuit open.
|
|
- If a connection to a helper succeeds, close all testing circuits.
|
|
Else mark that helper down and try another.
|
|
- If the last helper is marked down and we already have a testing
|
|
circuit established, then add the first hop of that testing circuit
|
|
to the end of our helper node list, close that testing circuit,
|
|
and go back to square one. (Actually, rather than closing the
|
|
testing circuit, can we get away with converting it to a normal
|
|
circuit and beginning to use it immediately?)
|
|
|
|
[Do we actually do any of the above? If so, let's spec it. If not, let's
|
|
remove it. -NM]
|
|
|
|
X.2. A thing we could do to deal with reachability.
|
|
|
|
And as a bonus, it leads to an answer to Nick's attack ("If I pick
|
|
my helper nodes all on 18.0.0.0:*, then I move, you'll know where I
|
|
bootstrapped") -- the answer is to pick your original three helper nodes
|
|
without regard for reachability. Then the above algorithm will add some
|
|
more that are reachable for you, and if you move somewhere, it's more
|
|
likely (though not certain) that some of the originals will become useful.
|
|
Is that smart or just complex?
|
|
|
|
X.3. Some stuff that worries me about entry guards. 2006 Jun, Nickm.
|
|
|
|
It is unlikely for two users to have the same set of entry guards.
|
|
Observing a user is sufficient to learn its entry guards. So, as we move
|
|
around, entry guards make us linkable. If we want to change guards when
|
|
our location (IP? subnet?) changes, we have two bad options. We could
|
|
- Drop the old guards. But if we go back to our old location,
|
|
we'll not use our old guards. For a laptop that sometimes gets used
|
|
from work and sometimes from home, this is pretty fatal.
|
|
- Remember the old guards as associated with the old location, and use
|
|
them again if we ever go back to the old location. This would be
|
|
nasty, since it would force us to record where we've been.
|
|
|
|
[Do we do any of this now? If not, this should move into 099-misc or
|
|
098-todo. -NM]
|
|
|