10 KiB
| layout | title | summary | tags | author | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| post | Overview and Logs for the tini2p Dev Meeting Held on 2019-07-18 | Current project status, Roadmap, Meta issues, and miscellaneous |
|
el00ruobuob / oneiric |
Logs
tini2p 0: Greetings
hi
1: What's been done
Not a lot code-wise, spent quite a bit of time working on spec proposals
zzz made some updates to 144 examples, and my suggestions for a NewSessionReply are being reviewed
as of today, here is a diff with my suggestions: https://gitlab.com/snippets/1876476
David Burkett
tini2p hi
David Burkett Don't mind me. Just listening in and hoping to learn something :)
tini2p :) right on, glad to have you here
feel free to ask questions or make comments on anything
David Burkett
tini2p here are my latest updates to the ECIES Tunnels draft proposal: https://geti2p.net/spec/proposals/152-ecies-tunnels
got some feedback from zzz today, so will make a couple more additions
will more or less be moving forward with the changes in the 144 diffs, and the 152 draft
will hopefully have something working by next Thursday
then alpha release
the release will be a bit ugly (code-wise), and will likely change quite a bit between alpha and beta release
but the core functionality will be in place, and at the least building end-to-end sessions will be possible through tini2p routers
David Burkett That's excellent!
tini2p it is NOT recommended to build connections on live networks, or contexts that require strong privacy
given that tini2p is in the earliest stages, there are likely bugs, and there will be very few routers running tini2p
David Burkett Will close my PR to bitcoin core and await further maturation :)
tini2p :)
what do you mean? use it for all the things :P in all seriousness it still needs a lot of work before recommending use to other projects
David Burkett just trolling lol
tini2p if I get interop working with ElGamal tunnels working, technically it would be possible to build tunnels through existing I2P routers
I will add a test network netid to prevent interaction with the live network by default
David Burkett That's what I'm looking forward to...I think. So many protocols, it's a lot to wrap my head around
tini2p so, it means you could build outbound and inbound tunnels using existing I2P routers as intermediary hops
the ends of the end-to-end session would still need to be tini2p routers, until we get 144 fully fleshed out
i.e. you won't be able to connect to existing I2P destinations
David Burkett Still fine with me. So the "tunnels" would be the same protocol as existing destinations, but the "sessions" would be a different protocol?
Or am I wildly incorrect
tini2p even the interop with existing I2P routers as tunnel hops is a maybe, and remains to be tested
so lets take the situation where router A wants to talk to router B
router A builds and outbound tunnel with outbound endpoint of OA
router b builds an inbound tunnel with inbound gateway IB
A and B will need to be tini2p routers
David Burkett G
got it
tini2p the routers between A and OA, and B and IB can be tini2p or existing I2P/i2pd routers
OA and IB can be tini2p/I2P/i2pd as well
that's the goal anyway, integration and end-to-end tests on a test network still need to be done
that's why I'll be adding a test network netid to prevent interacting with the live I2P mainnet by default
David Burkett So if a p2p project decided to use tini2p, it could only communicate with other peers running i2p, but theoretically, it would get the anonymity set of the i2p network as a whole, correct?
tini2p it will require the user to change the code and recompile
if I can get tunnel interop working it would be able to use the existing anonymity set for tunnel building
David Burkett 👍 Understood
tini2p however, it may still be possible to detect tini2p destinations, so may still have a limited anonymity set in that way
for full tini2p stealth mode, it would require using blinded leaseset2 published to netdb
I haven't implemented blinded leaseset2, and they aren't live for I2P or i2pd yet either
David Burkett I don't necessarily need to hide participation, so that would be fine. But it would be difficult to detect which participants are communicating with each other, correct?
tini2p though I think i2pd has made a ton of progress there
tini2p hop participants in tunnels should look like any other I2P hop to existing non-tini2p routers
David Burkett excellent
tini2p they will be distinguishable to tini2p tunnel creators
that should change if 152 is adopted network wide, but that is still a long way off
we're still in the earliest stages of discussing 152
long way from seeing implementation and adoption by other implementations
if it is at all
David Burkett Ah, using the context I just gained from this discussion, I now at least understand what's being proposed in 144 & 152. So thanks!
tini2p awesome, happy to help!
144 is closer to adoption, and when the spec is finalized, tini2p will be able to connect to any destination implementing the spec
zzz has longer estimates than I do for finalization though, so TBD
152 might get split into two proposals, one for tunnel building changes, one for tunnel layer encryption
there appear to be less concerns with tunnel building, and the changes for tunnel layer encryption introduce Blowfish as a new crypto primitive for nonce encryption
tini2p tini2p and ECIES routers need the tunnel building changes to build through existing I2P ElGamal routers, but can use existing tunnel layer encryption for passing/encrypting messages to existing tunnel participants
e.g. there is no way for an ECIES identity to encrypt to an ElGamal identity (no X25519-ElGamal key exchange algo exists)
David Burkett Why Blowfish?
tini2p how 152 proposes solving this is using an ElGamal identity to encrypt build records to existing ElGamal hops, and an ECIES identity for ECIES hops
Blowfish is a 64-bit block symmetric cipher, which is normally a bad idea with new protocols
David Burkett So 152 == Prefer ECIES, but support both for interoperability?
tini2p however, it is only used to encrypt nonces used for ChaCha20 tunnel layer encryption
re: interop, mostly yes. though at first, ElGamal will be preferred in practicality, given they are the entirety of the available hops atm
David Burkett And if a single nonce is compromised, ChaCha20 still remains relatively secure compared to other stream ciphers. So that makes sense
tini2p the only existing practical attack against Blowfish is the Sweet32 birthday attack, which gets block collision in ~2^32 blocks
yeah if the nonce gets compromised, it doesn't affect the ChaCha20 encryption
David Burkett O, then why does Schneier discourage it? Just because it's only 64 bytes?
*bits :)
tini2p nonce compromise does allow two non-consecutive tunnel hops to know they are in the same tunnel, which has some consequences for I2P
64-bit block ciphers are not as good as 128-bit+ block ciphers when using it for full confidentiality, yeah
David Burkett Gotcha, I think I've seen him recommend threefish over blowfish before, even though both are 64-bit. O well, I digress. Carry on
tini2p in this case though, we need Blowfish for it's 64-bit block size because ChaCha20 only has a max of 96-bit nonces
(in the ietf version)
threefish is 64-bit?
if so, I'll change it to threefish
David Burkett I believe, let me check
tini2p the 64-bit block is what's important, so if there is a stronger algo supporting 64-bit block size, I'll use that
David Burkett https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threefish
Looks like it
tini2p 🚀 so nice, thank you!!!
honestly preferred something stronger than Blowfish, so will look into threefish, and it's support in crypto libs
David Burkett Please confirm though. When it comes to crypto, all 'facts' come straight from my backside.
tini2p sure, I will investigate
David Burkett
tini2p While nonce compromise doesn't destroy the crypto system, it does leak info to attackers that could enable strong attacks between non-consecutive tunnel hops
David Burkett Makes sense
tini2p i.e. if E -> H -> G are tunnel hops, and E + G are colluding attackers, compromising H's nonce would allow E + G to know they are in the same tunnel
it doesn't fully destroy the anonymity of using tunnel proxies, but severely compromises it
so want to protect against it as much as possible
why I set the limit of tunnel messages to 2^31, so that Sweet32 attacks against Blowfish aren't possible
though even 2^30 messages will never be practically reached in 10 minute tunnels
it's on the order of millions of messages per second
existing tunnel layer encryption uses double encryption with AES256/ECB for tunnel IVs to defeat the described confirmation attack
duplicate IVs are also rejected, further protecting against the attack
going to run some tests on that, but makes sense atm
tini2p i.e. see if observable patterns can be detected in IVs that only change a bit or two
if they can, then the changes for tunnel layer encryption become much more important
David Burkett There shouldn't be any observable patterns. If changing 1 bit is in any way detectable, the cipher failed
tini2p my hypothesis going into it though is that they can't
right
ECB has its problems, but hopefully it isn't that broken
2: What's next
we basically just covered what I'll be working on over the next week
goal is to get an ECIES impl in place following the 144 diffs, work on solidifying the 152 proposal, and getting a tunnel impl in place
tini2p it may only be possible to do ECIES-to-ECIES tunnels by next Thursday, but sometimes miraculous things happen :)
David Burkett Indeed. Good luck!
tini2p thanks
3: Comments / Questions
4: Next Meeting
2019-07-25 18:00 UTC
will be discussing alpha release, and then resuming 2-week meeting schedule
meeting over!
David Burkett Thanks @tini2p_gitlab!
@tini2p_gitlab bangs a squeaky toy gavel
tini2p thanks for attending!