Re: [tor-dev] Comments on proposal 279 (Name API)

2017-04-05 Thread Jeremy Rand
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA512 Hi Nick! Nick Mathewson: > Section 2.1 and elsewhere: > > I suggest that we require all address suffixes to end with .onion; > other TLDs are not reserved like .onion is, and maybe we shouldn't > squat any we haven't squatted already. FWIW it's

[tor-dev] "Anomalous keys in Tor relays" technical report now available

2017-04-05 Thread Laura M. Roberts
Hello, Tor devs! We have just published a (not yet peer-reviewed) technical report entitled "Anomalous keys in Tor relays." https://nymity.ch/anomalous-tor-keys/ The project was inspired by the "Mining Your P's and Q's" paper from Heninger et. al., and in it, we take a closer look at the RSA k

Re: [tor-dev] Proposition: Applying an AONT to Prop224 addresses?

2017-04-05 Thread Alec Muffett
On 5 April 2017 at 15:11, Ian Goldberg wrote: > I believe the danger Alec was wanting to avoid was that someone (not the > onion service owner) could take an existing onion address, bump the > version number (which wouldn't change the vanity beginning of the > address), and upload the very same d

Re: [tor-dev] Proposition: Applying an AONT to Prop224 addresses?

2017-04-05 Thread Ian Goldberg
On Wed, Apr 05, 2017 at 10:02:07AM -0400, David Goulet wrote: > Another thing about this I just thought of. This AONT construction seems wise > to use. But it's still not entirely clear to me why we need a 1bit version > field. Taking this: > > base64( AONT( pubkey || 0x ) || version) > >

Re: [tor-dev] Proposition: Applying an AONT to Prop224 addresses?

2017-04-05 Thread David Goulet
On 05 Apr (09:50:38), David Goulet wrote: > On 27 Mar (04:58:34), Ian Goldberg wrote: > > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 01:59:42AM -0400, Ian Goldberg wrote: > > > > To add an aside from a discussion with Teor: the entire "version" field > > > > could be reduced to a single - probably "zero" - bit, in a

Re: [tor-dev] Proposition: Applying an AONT to Prop224 addresses?

2017-04-05 Thread David Goulet
On 27 Mar (04:58:34), Ian Goldberg wrote: > On Mon, Mar 27, 2017 at 01:59:42AM -0400, Ian Goldberg wrote: > > > To add an aside from a discussion with Teor: the entire "version" field > > > could be reduced to a single - probably "zero" - bit, in a manner perhaps > > > similar to the distinctions b

Re: [tor-dev] ***SPAM*** Re: Proposition: Applying an AONT to Prop224 addresses?

2017-04-05 Thread George Kadianakis
Ian Goldberg writes: > On Mon, Apr 03, 2017 at 02:53:17PM +0100, Alec Muffett wrote: >> On 3 April 2017 at 13:04, George Kadianakis wrote: >> >> > I'm calling it weird because I'm not sure how an >> > attacker can profit from being able to provide two addresses that >> > correspond to the same

Re: [tor-dev] Prop279 and DNS

2017-04-05 Thread George Kadianakis
Jeremy Rand writes: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA512 > > Hello! > > Maybe this topic has already been brought up, but in case it hasn't, > I'll do so. I notice that Prop279 (onion naming API) defines its own > API rather than using DNS. I guess that this is because of securit

Re: [tor-dev] Control-port filtering: can it have a reasonable threat model?

2017-04-05 Thread intrigeri
Nick Mathewson: [...] > 5. tbb.json > Allows "SETEVENTS STREAM" and "GETINFO circuit-status", for which see > "onioncircuits" above. > = > Filters from > https://git-tails.immerda.ch/tails/tree/config/chroot_local-includes/etc/tor-controlport-filter.d [...] > 3. tor-browser.yml > As "tbb.