Re: [tor-dev] Alternatives to Tor Exit Enclaves

2012-04-19 Thread Andrew Lewman
On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 17:28:42 -0400
Arturo Filastò a...@baculo.org wrote:

 The current stable version of Tor (0.2.2.x) still supports Exit
 enclaves. The new versions of Tor
 ( 0.2.3.x) use a new descriptor format (microdescriptors) allow
 relays to specify an Exit Enclave
 policy, but clients will not use it, therefore voiding the purpose of
 exit enclaving.

Is there a plan to re-enable clients to use exit enclaves?

-- 
Andrew
http://tpo.is/contact
pgp 0x6B4D6475
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Alternatives to Tor Exit Enclaves

2012-04-18 Thread Andrew Clausen
Hi Arturo,

Do .exit addresses already do what you had in mind?  For example, if
you add AllowDotExit 1 to your torrc, you can type an address like
this

http://thewebserver.exit/index.html

into your web browser.

It would be nice if this particular usage of .exit were allowed by
default (but the more dangerous anotherserver.anexitnode.exit still
remain disabled by default).

Cheers,
Andrew

On 18 April 2012 17:28, Arturo Filastò a...@baculo.org wrote:
 The purpose of Exit Enclaves was to allow people running a website to
 make Tor users
 access it without ever leaving the Tor network. This leads to the
 clients having end-to-end
 encryption with the target destination.

 Even in previous version this had some issues, one of which was the fact
 that at the first
 connection the user would not be accessing the destination over a Tor
 circuit if the destination
 was provided in a hostname format (and not IP).

 The current stable version of Tor (0.2.2.x) still supports Exit
 enclaves. The new versions of Tor
 ( 0.2.3.x) use a new descriptor format (microdescriptors) allow relays
 to specify an Exit Enclave
 policy, but clients will not use it, therefore voiding the purpose of
 exit enclaving.

 I believe there is the need for something similar to Tor Exit Enclaving
 and the closest thing I see
 fit these requirements are Tor Encrypted Services
 (https://gitweb.torproject.org/torspec.git/blob/HEAD:/proposals/ideas/xxx-encrypted-services.txt).

 Encrypted Services (EC), are basically regular Tor Hidden Services, that
 do not provide anonymity
 for the server and gain a better performance because of this (they have
 a one-hop circuit
 to the RV and IP).

 The problem with making Encrypted services work to replace Exit Enclaves
 is that the client needs
 to have a way to understand that their destination is running also as an
 Encrypted Service.

 In this very high level overview I don't go into very much detail of how
 this system will actually
 work, but I hope it will prompt some discussion on the matter.

 I think this can be achieved mainly in 3 ways.

 1) The client already knows all of the EC's
 2) The client looks up if a destination is an EC when trying to connect
 to it
 3) The final hop looks up if the destination is an EC

 These all have some drawbacks:

 In 1) the client needs to download the full list of EC's, therefore if
 the number of EC's get's
 very large it will take clients much more to bootstrap and they will
 need to store more data.
 The good thing of this though is that the speed of connections would be
 as fast as they
 are at the moment as it does not require any extra connections.

 In 2) the clients needs to complete an extra round-trip for every
 connection. I don't think
 this is a valid solution as it would degrade the quality of connections
 for every user.

 In 3) the final hop would do along side a normal A lookup for hostnames
 a CNAME lookup (
 or another special field). If it finds that such a lookup returns a
 .onion address instead of
 returning a RELAY_CONNECTED cell it will return a ENCRYPTED_SERVICE cell
 containing
 the .onion address of the target ES.

 The client will then cache this address and connect to it.

 This approach adds a little bit of overhead (since two DNS lookups need
 to be made),
 but it is still faster than 2).

 It suffers from the issue of the exit node could spoof the .onion
 address and redirect
 the user to a malicious .onion address. This is quite a tough problem
 that I am still
 unsure how it could be solved. If we have support for DNSSec this issue
 could be mitigated.

 I would love some feedback on this topic.


 - Art.




 ___
 tor-dev mailing list
 tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
 https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Alternatives to Tor Exit Enclaves

2012-04-18 Thread Arturo Filastò
On 4/18/12 5:33 PM, Andrew Clausen wrote:
 Do .exit addresses already do what you had in mind?  For example, if
 you add AllowDotExit 1 to your torrc, you can type an address like
 this


No, .exit notation is a bad idea because it allows people
to force you to exit through a particular exit node of their
choosing. For example I can place a img src= tag on a website
and de-anonymize every user by getting them to go through my
address.

- Art.
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev


Re: [tor-dev] Alternatives to Tor Exit Enclaves

2012-04-18 Thread Mike Warren
Arturo Filastò a...@baculo.org writes:

 The purpose of Exit Enclaves was to allow people running a website
 to make Tor users access it without ever leaving the Tor
 network. This leads to the clients having end-to-end encryption with
 the target destination.

Probably I'm missing something obvious, but can't you provide
something more-or-less equivalent with a self-signed certificate and
HTTPS to access your hidden service?

-- 
mike
___
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev