> On 3 Dec. 2016, at 11:48, Bungeetaco <bungeet...@protonmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Hi there, I have added the following line to the torrc of all my tor nodes 
> and reloaded the daemons:
> 
> MyFamily 
> 629FE436746E0AACDFC93D2DA70B5E269F7ADC79,DA5B2F8C1C7E901374C8A200277A3C927176BF0F,A894ABB7B1A990B5F10BA9CBE668E27BE6C7FEDF
> 
> Been running my two exit nodes for a year now with good management, and I 
> haven't got raided so far so I guess I'm doing this the right way. Glad you 
> guys are reaching out about issues that are easily fixable by operators 
> instead of just blacklisting nodes at random.
> If something else needs my attention, feel free to let me know. I love this 
> project ^w^/.

Thanks for fixing this so quickly.

It should be distributed to all clients within the next few hours.

You can check it worked using the "Family Members" on:
https://atlas.torproject.org/#details/629FE436746E0AACDFC93D2DA70B5E269F7ADC79

It will take at least 15 minutes to appear on atlas, and maybe even
75 minutes, if your relays sent updated descriptors after 50 minutes
past the hour.

Tim

> 
>> -------- Original Message --------
>> Subject: Re: [tor-dev] protecting users from known relay groups with 
>> end-to-end correlation capabilities
>> Local Time: December 2, 2016 7:15 PM
>> UTC Time: December 3, 2016 12:15 AM
>> From: teor2...@gmail.com
>> To: Bungeetaco <bungeet...@protonmail.com>
>> tor-dev@lists.torproject.org <tor-dev@lists.torproject.org>
>> 
>> 
>> > On 3 Dec. 2016, at 11:11, Bungeetaco <bungeet...@protonmail.com> wrote:
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > 
>> > Hi there! I would be more than glad to apply the appropriate modifications 
>> > to my relay if it means increased security for the users ;D. I care about 
>> > the security and privacy of the people who pass through my relays, and I 
>> > take pride in supporting a project which empowers people so much. I 
>> > decided to run a Middle and 2 exit nodes because I wanted to provide 
>> > diversified support to the Tor network, I did not intend to jeopardize 
>> > anyone's privacy or security.
>> > 
>> > Would I need to add the fingerprints of my others nodes in my torrc 
>> > configuration files? If so, please let me know how to accomplish this and 
>> > I'll push an update on all my servers ASAP. The last thing I want is 
>> > create a security risk for the users and/or distrust.
>> > 
>> > Thanks for letting me know about this btw!
>> 
>> Hi Bungeetaco,
>> 
>> On each relay, add a line to the torrc that says:
>> 
>> MyFamily fingerprint,fingerprint,fingerprint,...
>> 
>> Where the fingerprints are the fingerprints of each of your relays.
>> 
>> Tim
>> 
>> > - Bungeetaco
>> > https://bungeetaco.com/
>> > 
>> >> -------- Original Message --------
>> >> Subject: Re: [tor-dev] protecting users from known relay groups with 
>> >> end-to-end correlation capabilities
>> >> Local Time: December 2, 2016 5:39 PM
>> >> UTC Time: December 2, 2016 10:39 PM
>> >> From: teor2...@gmail.com
>> >> To: tor-dev@lists.torproject.org
>> >> ab...@torworld.org, t...@digineo.de, Viktor Nikolov 
>> >> <vniko...@vnikolov.cz>, Nicholas Merrill <n...@calyx.com>, 
>> >> bungeet...@protonmail.com, Dmitrii Tcvetkov <demfl...@demfloro.ru>, 
>> >> ab...@to-surf-and-protect.net, bad-rel...@lists.torproject.org
>> >> 
>> >> Dear relay operators who are CC'd,
>> >> 
>> >> TL;DR: we're talking about blacklisting your non-exit relays,
>> >> because they don't have MyFamily set correctly.
>> >> 
>> >> If you'd like help configuring MyFamily correctly, please let us know.
>> >> 
>> >> > On 3 Dec. 2016, at 08:50, nusenu <nus...@openmailbox.org> wrote:
>> >> > 
>> >> > Hi,
>> >> > 
>> >> > it is a well known fact that MyFamily is a largely ignored setting,
>> >> > luckily this is not a problem in most cases because
>> >> > 
>> >> > - all relevant relays are run in a single /16
>> >> > or
>> >> > - are only guard relays (exit probability = 0*)
>> >> > or
>> >> > - are only exit relays (guard probability = 0*)
>> >> > 
>> >> > but there is a limited number of relay groups** that have actual
>> >> > end-to-end correlation capabilities, meaning they are potentially chosen
>> >> > by tor clients for the guard _and_ exit position, even if the odds are
>> >> > (hopefully) not very high.
>> >> > 
>> >> > These potentially dangerous relay groups
>> >> > - are run in multiple /16 netblocks
>> >> > - have an exit _and_ guard probability of > 0 (because they run exits
>> >> > and guards)
>> >> > 
>> >> > Examples (generated daily):
>> >> > https://raw.githubusercontent.com/ornetstats/stats/master/o/potentially_dangerous_relaygroups.txt
>> >> > (see CC)
>> >> 
>> >> This is a useful check, but it is insufficient.
>> >> Can you please produce a similar list for middles and exits by the same
>> >> operator?
>> >> 
>> >> (Controlling the middle and exit leads to a guard identification
>> >> attack.)
>> >> 
>> >> There's also an attack when an operator controls a guard and a middle.
>> >> But that's harder to resolve, albeit much more common.
>> >> 
>> >> > How could the risk for tor clients be reduced?
>> >> > (options after enough dir auths came to the conclusion that these relays
>> >> > are in fact operated by a single entity)
>> >> > 
>> >> > 1) try to contact the operators and give them time to fix it
>> >> > I've done that multiple times but haven't been successful [1]
>> >> 
>> >> Have you tried emailing them individually?
>> >> I've typically got better results that way.
>> >> 
>> >> > 2) build tools to easily/automatically manage MyFamily
>> >> > done[2], but it is unlikely to be used
>> >> 
>> >> Maybe one solution is to build a generic tool that works with more than
>> >> just ansible?
>> >> 
>> >> > 3) assign them the badexit flag
>> >> > since exits are a scarce resource, not very wise
>> >> 
>> >> +1
>> >> 
>> >> > 4) assign them the badguard flag
>> >> > there is no such thing ;)
>> >> 
>> >> We have written patches that take away the guard flag.
>> >> This would be possible, but it doesn't resolve the issue, because they
>> >> will still be used as middle relays.
>> >> 
>> >> However, taking away the guard flag would fix the guard/middle case,
>> >> because then all the relays would only be used as middle relays.
>> >> 
>> >> > 5) blacklist the entry guards (that are outside the configured family)
>> >> 
>> >> Yes, this is the best option, because it protects clients from
>> >> selecting relays from that operator as either guard or middle.
>> >> 
>> >> (However, operating a bridge and an exit still has the same issue, and
>> >> there is no MyFamily for bridges, because that de-anonymises them. As
>> >> do the bridge/middle and guard/middle cases. So maybe we should
>> >> consider the risks of each case, and whether we want to educate or ban.)
>> >> 
>> >> And, of course, it's worth noting that the ContactInfo might be
>> >> incorrect, so we would have to do this on a case-by-case basis, and
>> >> convince the directory authority operators it's a sensible thing to do.
>> >> 
>> >> (If someone is using others' ContactInfo, those relays should be
>> >> banned.)
>> >> 
>> >> > 6) change tor's path selection algorithm to never choose more than one
>> >> > relay with a given non-empty non-default contact string?
>> >> > This would basically turn the ContactInfo field into the PoS token
>> >> > mentioned by Mike in [3]. Since there are a few common contactInfo
>> >> > strings this is probably not the best option without excluding them.
>> >> 
>> >> No, this field is not mutually authenticated, unlike MyFamily.
>> >> This leads to an attack where bad relays bias client path selection
>> >> using ContactInfo.
>> >> 
>> >> > [1]
>> >> > https://lists.torproject.org/pipermail/tor-relays/2016-November/010965.html
>> >> > [2] https://github.com/nusenu/ansible-relayor
>> >> > [3] https://trac.torproject.org/projects/tor/ticket/5565
>> >> > * if we can assume onionoo's values to be accurate and realistic
>> >> > ** they are considered to be operated by a single group due to their
>> >> > contactInfo descriptor field. This string is not verified in any way and
>> >> > can therefore result in false-positives.

T

-- 
Tim Wilson-Brown (teor)

teor2345 at gmail dot com
PGP C855 6CED 5D90 A0C5 29F6 4D43 450C BA7F 968F 094B
ricochet:ekmygaiu4rzgsk6n
xmpp: teor at torproject dot org
------------------------------------------------------------------------



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

Reply via email to