256 lines
10 KiB
ReStructuredText
256 lines
10 KiB
ReStructuredText
=================================
|
|
BitTorrent DHT security extension
|
|
=================================
|
|
|
|
.. include:: header.rst
|
|
|
|
.. contents:: Table of contents
|
|
:depth: 2
|
|
:backlinks: none
|
|
|
|
BitTorrent DHT security extension
|
|
---------------------------------
|
|
|
|
The purpose of this extension is to make it harder to launch a few
|
|
specific attacks against the BitTorrent DHT and also to make it harder
|
|
to snoop the network.
|
|
|
|
Specifically the attack this extension intends to make harder is launching
|
|
8 or more DHT nodes which node-IDs selected close to a specific target
|
|
info-hash, in order to become the main nodes hosting peers for it. Currently
|
|
this is very easy to do and lets the attacker not only see all the traffic
|
|
related to this specific info-hash but also block access to it by other
|
|
peers.
|
|
|
|
The proposed guard against this is to enforce restrictions on which node-ID
|
|
a node can choose, based on its external IP address.
|
|
|
|
considerations
|
|
--------------
|
|
|
|
One straight forward scheme to tie the node ID to an IP would be to hash
|
|
the IP and force the node ID to share the prefix of that hash. One main
|
|
draw back of this approach is that an entities control over the DHT key
|
|
space grows linearly with its control over the IP address space.
|
|
|
|
In order to successfully launch an attack, you just need to find 8 IPs
|
|
whose hash will be *closest* to the target info-hash. Given the current
|
|
size of the DHT, that is quite likely to be possible by anyone in control
|
|
of a /8 IP block.
|
|
|
|
The size of the DHT is approximately 8.4 million nodes. This is estimated
|
|
by observing that a typical routing table typically has about 20 of its
|
|
top routing table buckets full. That means the key space is dense enough
|
|
to contain 8 nodes for every combination of the 20 top bits of node IDs.
|
|
|
|
``2^20 * 8 = 8388608``
|
|
|
|
By controlling that many IP addresses, an attacker could snoop any info-hash.
|
|
By controlling 8 times that many IP addresses, an attacker could actually
|
|
take over any info-hash.
|
|
|
|
With IPv4, snooping would require a /8 IP block, giving access to 16.7 million
|
|
IPs.
|
|
|
|
Another problem with hashing the IP is that multiple users behind a NAT are
|
|
forced to run their DHT nodes on the same node ID.
|
|
|
|
Node ID restriction
|
|
-------------------
|
|
|
|
In order to avoid the number node IDs controlled to grow linearly by the number
|
|
of IPs, as well as allowing more than one node ID per external IP, the node
|
|
ID can be restricted at each class level of the IP.
|
|
|
|
Another important property of the restriction put on node IDs is that the
|
|
distribution of the IDs remain uniform. This is why CRC32C (Castagnoli) was
|
|
chosen as the hash function.
|
|
|
|
The expression to calculate a valid ID prefix (from an IPv4 address) is::
|
|
|
|
crc32c((ip & 0x030f3fff) | (r << 29))
|
|
|
|
And for an IPv6 address (``ip`` is the high 64 bits of the address)::
|
|
|
|
crc32c((ip & 0x0103070f1f3f7fff) | (r << 61))
|
|
|
|
``r`` is a random number in the range [0, 7]. The resulting integer,
|
|
representing the masked IP address is supposed to be big-endian before
|
|
hashed. The "|" operator means bit-wise OR.
|
|
|
|
The details of implementing this is to evaluate the expression, store the
|
|
result in a big-endian 64 bit integer and hash those 8 bytes with CRC32C.
|
|
|
|
The first (most significant) 21 bits of the node ID used in the DHT MUST
|
|
match the first 21 bits of the resulting hash. The last byte of the hash MUST
|
|
match the random number (``r``) used to generate the hash.
|
|
|
|
.. image:: ip_id_v4.png
|
|
.. image:: ip_id_v6.png
|
|
|
|
Example code code for calculating a valid node ID::
|
|
|
|
uint8_t* ip; // our external IPv4 or IPv6 address (network byte order)
|
|
int num_octets; // the number of octets to consider in ip (4 or 8)
|
|
uint8_t node_id[20]; // resulting node ID
|
|
|
|
uint8_t v4_mask[] = { 0x03, 0x0f, 0x3f, 0xff };
|
|
uint8_t v6_mask[] = { 0x01, 0x03, 0x07, 0x0f, 0x1f, 0x3f, 0x7f, 0xff };
|
|
uint8_t* mask = num_octets == 4 ? v4_mask : v6_mask;
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < num_octets; ++i)
|
|
ip[i] &= mask[i];
|
|
|
|
uint32_t rand = std::rand() & 0xff;
|
|
uint8_t r = rand & 0x7;
|
|
ip[0] |= r << 5;
|
|
|
|
uint32_t crc = 0;
|
|
crc = crc32c(crc, ip, num_octets);
|
|
|
|
// only take the top 21 bits from crc
|
|
node_id[0] = (crc >> 24) & 0xff;
|
|
node_id[1] = (crc >> 16) & 0xff;
|
|
node_id[2] = ((crc >> 8) & 0xf8) | (std::rand() & 0x7);
|
|
for (int i = 3; i < 19; ++i) node_id[i] = std::rand();
|
|
node_id[19] = rand;
|
|
|
|
test vectors:
|
|
|
|
.. parsed-literal::
|
|
|
|
IP rand example node ID
|
|
============ ===== ==========================================
|
|
124.31.75.21 1 **5fbfbf** f10c5d6a4ec8a88e4c6ab4c28b95eee4 **01**
|
|
21.75.31.124 86 **5a3ce9** c14e7a08645677bbd1cfe7d8f956d532 **56**
|
|
65.23.51.170 22 **a5d432** 20bc8f112a3d426c84764f8c2a1150e6 **16**
|
|
84.124.73.14 65 **1b0321** dd1bb1fe518101ceef99462b947a01ff **41**
|
|
43.213.53.83 90 **e56f6c** bf5b7c4be0237986d5243b87aa6d5130 **5a**
|
|
|
|
The bold parts of the node ID are the important parts. The rest are
|
|
random numbers. The last bold number of each row has only its most significant
|
|
bit pulled from the CRC32C function. The lower 3 bits are random.
|
|
|
|
bootstrapping
|
|
-------------
|
|
|
|
In order to set ones initial node ID, the external IP needs to be known. This
|
|
is not a trivial problem. With this extension, *all* DHT responses SHOULD include
|
|
a *top-level* field called ``ip``, containing a compact binary representation of
|
|
the requester's IP and port. That is big-endian IP followed by 2 bytes of big-endian
|
|
port.
|
|
|
|
The IP portion is the same byte sequence used to verify the node ID.
|
|
|
|
It is important that the ``ip`` field is in the top level dictionary. Nodes that
|
|
enforce the node-ID will respond with an error message ("y": "e", "e": { ... }),
|
|
whereas a node that supports this extension but without enforcing it will respond
|
|
with a normal reply ("y": "r", "r": { ... }).
|
|
|
|
A DHT node which receives an ``ip`` result in a request SHOULD consider restarting
|
|
its DHT node with a new node ID, taking this IP into account. Since a single node
|
|
can not be trusted, there should be some mechanism to determine whether or
|
|
not the node has a correct understanding of its external IP or not. This could
|
|
be done by voting, or only restart the DHT once at least a certain number of
|
|
nodes, from separate searches, tells you your node ID is incorrect.
|
|
|
|
rationale
|
|
---------
|
|
|
|
The choice of using CRC32C instead of a more traditional cryptographic hash
|
|
function is justified primarily of these reasons:
|
|
|
|
1. it is a fast function
|
|
2. produces well distributed results
|
|
3. there is no need for the hash function to be one-way (the input set is
|
|
so small that any hash function could be reversed).
|
|
4. CRC32C (Castagnoli) is supported in hardware by SSE 4.2, which can
|
|
significantly speed up computation
|
|
|
|
There are primarily two tests run on SHA-1 and CRC32C to establish the
|
|
distribution of results. The first one is the number of bits in the output
|
|
set that contain every possible combination of bits. The CRC32C function
|
|
has a longer such prefix in its output than SHA-1. This means nodes will still
|
|
have well uniformly distributed IDs, even when IP addresses in use are not
|
|
uniformly distributed.
|
|
|
|
The following graph illustrate a few different hash functions with regard
|
|
to this property.
|
|
|
|
.. image:: complete_bit_prefixes.png
|
|
|
|
This test takes into account IP addresses that are not globally routable, i.e.
|
|
reserved for local networks, multicast and other things. It also takes into
|
|
account that some /8 blocks are not in use by end-users and extremely unlikely
|
|
to ever run a DHT node. This makes the results likely to be very similar to
|
|
what we would see in the wild.
|
|
|
|
These results indicate that CRC32C provides the best uniformity in the results
|
|
in terms of bit prefixes where all possibilities are represented, and that
|
|
no more than 21 bits should be used from the result. If more than 21 bits
|
|
were to be used, there would be certain node IDs that would be impossible to
|
|
have, which would make routing sub-optimal.
|
|
|
|
The second test is more of a sanity test for the uniform distribution property.
|
|
The target space (32 bit integer) is divided up into 1000 buckets. Every valid
|
|
IP and ``r`` input is run through the algorithm and the result is put in the
|
|
bucket it falls in. The expectation is that each bucket has roughly an equal
|
|
number of results falling into it. The following graph shows the resulting
|
|
histogram, comparing SHA-1 and CRC32C.
|
|
|
|
.. image:: hash_distribution.png
|
|
|
|
The source code for these tests can be found here_.
|
|
|
|
.. _here: https://github.com/arvidn/hash_complete_prefix
|
|
|
|
The reason to use CRC32C instead of the CRC32 implemented by zlib is that
|
|
Intel CPUs have hardware support for the CRC32C calculations. The input
|
|
being exactly 4 bytes is also deliberate, to make it fit in a single
|
|
instruction.
|
|
|
|
enforcement
|
|
-----------
|
|
|
|
Once enforced, write tokens from peers whose node ID does not match its external
|
|
IP should be considered dropped. In other words, a peer that uses a non-matching
|
|
ID MUST never be used to store information on, regardless of which request. In the
|
|
original DHT specification only ``announce_peer`` stores data in the network,
|
|
but any future extension which stores data in the network SHOULD use the same
|
|
restriction.
|
|
|
|
Any peer on a local network address is exempt from this node ID verification.
|
|
This includes the following IP blocks:
|
|
|
|
10.0.0.0/8
|
|
reserved for local networks
|
|
172.16.0.0/12
|
|
reserved for local networks
|
|
192.168.0.0/16
|
|
reserved for local networks
|
|
169.254.0.0/16
|
|
reserved for self-assigned IPs
|
|
127.0.0.0/8
|
|
reserved for loopback
|
|
|
|
|
|
backwards compatibility and transition
|
|
--------------------------------------
|
|
|
|
During some transition period, this restriction should not be enforced, and
|
|
peers whose node ID does not match this formula relative to their external IP
|
|
should not be blocked.
|
|
|
|
Requests from peers whose node ID does not match their external IP should
|
|
always be serviced, even after the transition period. The attack this protects
|
|
from is storing data on an attacker's node, not servicing an attackers request.
|
|
|
|
forward compatibility
|
|
---------------------
|
|
|
|
If the total size of the DHT grows to the point where the inherent size limit
|
|
in this proposal is too small, the modulus constants can be updated in a new
|
|
proposal, and another transition period where both sets of modulus constants
|
|
are accepted.
|
|
|