\documentclass[runningheads]{llncs} \usepackage{epsfig} \usepackage{latexsym} \usepackage{psfrag} \usepackage{amsfonts} %%\newenvironment{algorithm} %%{% %%\begin{figure}[hptb] %%%\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1} %%\small %%} %%{\end{figure} %%\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{2} %%} % replace bullets by dashes in itemize \renewcommand\labelitemi{\normalfont\bfseries --} \renewcommand\labelitemii{$\m@th\bullet$} \newenvironment{revpar}{% \begin{list}% {}{\setlength{\labelwidth}{0in}% \setlength{\itemsep}{0in}% \setlength{\topsep}{0in}% \setlength{\leftmargin}{4em}% \setlength{\itemindent}{-2em}}}{\end{list}} \newenvironment{algorithm}{% \medbreak% \begin{list}% {}{\setlength{\labelwidth}{0in}% \setlength{\listparindent}{0in}% \setlength{\rightmargin}{0in}} \small \item}{\end{list}} \title{Leuchtfeuer} \subtitle{A Unified Agreement Protocol for Mix-nets} % Blinded for submission %\author {Klaus Kursawe\inst{1} and Peter Palfrader\inst{2} and Len Sassaman\inst{1} %foo %\institute{Katholieke Universiteit Leuven\\ %Kasteelpark Arenberg 10, B-3001 Leuven-Heverlee, Belgium\\ %\email{\{len.sassaman,klaus.kursawe\}@esat.kuleuven.be} %\and %Paris Lodron Universit\"at Salzburg\\ %Salzburg, Austria\\ %\email{ppalfrad@cosy.sbg.ac.at} %} %foo \date{} \begin{document} \maketitle \begin{abstract} We describe the structure of the deployed mix-net systems, and examine the security implications that arise when user behavior is influenced by the node reliability and availability data provided by independently-operated information services. We present~\emph{Leuchtfeuer}, a protocol enhancement for distributed-trust mix-nets which eliminates the active and passive intersection attack vector created when multiple information services contain differing information about the mix-net. Leuchtfeuer uses Byzantine agreement protocols and threshold signatures to enable the information services to publish a verifiable consensus on the network information required by the mix-net clients. \end{abstract} \section{Introduction} We begin by presenting an overview of the infrastructure components that make up the public mix-net systems in use on the Internet, and examine the information service publishers known as \emph{pingers}. We evaluate the additional security considerations present in mix-net systems featuring pingers. We explain the problem of pinger inconsistency, an issue which poses significant security implications and creates the potential for two related attacks with the potential for complete loss of anonymity. We present a solution to this problem, the pinger agreement protocol \emph{Leuchtfeuer}, which can be incorporated into the vulnerable mix-net protocols. \section{Reliability monitoring of mix-nets} \label{pingers} Mix-nets are intended to protect users' anonymity and conceal their communication patterns. In a distributed-trust anonymity system such as this, the user must trust that the \emph{system} will provide these protections, but is not required to trust all of the individual nodes themselves. Mix-nets consist of \emph{mixes} which accept input traffic in the form of messages encrypted to the mix's public key, then they delay and reorder the traffic, finally forwarding it onward to its pre-addressed destination. Messages are sent through user-selected\footnote{Or client-selected.} chains of mixes, with each message typically encrypted and addressed, in a nested fashion, to three to five mixes in the mix-net. The security of the system is based on the premise that a user's traffic may be safely routed through nodes which the attacker controls, as long as the user's client has selected a path through the network that includes a sufficient number of honest nodes. Multiple distributed-trust mix-net variants have been deployed on the Internet since the early 1990's. The components of the extant mix-nets are operated on a volunteer basis, often by parties unknown to the users. Since many volunteer operators lack the resources to offer the same level of high-availability access assurance as commercial network service providers, and individual mixes may come and go as the circumstances facilitating their volunteer operation change, it is essential that users of the mix-net be able to learn a current list of available, correctly-performing mixes, and their corresponding public keys, so that their messages will be delivered reliably and swiftly. The first reliability monitoring servers for mix-nets to be deployed~\cite{rlist} existed to provide information about the Cypherpunk remailer network~\cite{hal-remailer}, and are known to users and operators of email-oriented mixes (or \emph{remailers}) as \emph{pingers}. While there have been multiple pingers written for the Cypherpunk and Mixmaster~\cite{mixmaster-spec} remailer networks over the last decade, more than two-thirds of the pingers currently in operation are running Echolot~\cite{echolot}. \subsection{Echolot} Echolot tests the ability of each Cypherpunk and Mixmaster remailer to correctly process messages and to communicate with the other remailers in the network, and records the success rates and elapsed time to completion for each test. Echolot makes the results of its monitoring available for download by mix clients. Additionally (and in contrast to some of the less-common pingers), Echolot tracks other information of concern to the mix clients, specifically the public keys and the capabilities that each remailer advertises. \subsection{Mixminion directory server} Mixminion~\cite{mixminion}, the eventual replacement for the Cypherpunk and Mixmaster networks, explicitly generalized the role of pingers to include the distribution of all information about remailer availability, performance, and key material, as defined in the Mixminion directory server specifications~\cite{mixminion-dirspec}. The designers of the Mixminion system considered attacks on the independent pinger model, and specified that directory servers be synchronized as well as redundant.\footnote{The Mixminion system does not, however, currently specify the means by which availability and performance metrics are calculated, and does not provide a mechanism for collecting this information}. %FIXME [Does Mixminion have any details on calculation stategy? Not sure, %but I should check the source.] % % Apparently, Mixminion doesn't do any actual pinging. Scratch that. % To this end, Mixminion publishes signed~\emph{capability blocks} in the directory server, consisting of the supported mix protocol versions, mix's address, long-term (signing) public key, short-term (message decryption) public key, remixing capability, and batching strategy. \section{Anonymity set attacks based on pinger data} A mix network in which users obtain their view of the network's heath and status from multiple independent sources opens the system to partitioning attacks~\cite{trickle02} against the users, based on differences in the mix selection based on the results of the different pingers. In a system of entirely honest pingers, this attack is feasible for an adversary operating in the passive observer model. Suppose Alice retrieved her network health information from pinger 1, and Bob retrieved his information from pinger 2. An observer watching the network local to Alice or Bob would know which pinger the user under observation chose. If the information provided by both pingers differed in some manner, the delta would contain mixes that, if chosen by Alice or Bob, would betray which pinger had been used to obtain this information. A message processed by a mix contained only in the results provided by pinger 1 could not have been sent by Bob, who obtains his results from a pinger lacking that information. Additionally, differences in pinger results for mix latency could lead to more subtle variations in mix path selection, which may aid an attacker. If a pinger is operated by an attacker, it becomes possible to specifically target individual users by providing them with unique information about the network in order to partition them into an anonymity set of size 1. Users can attempt to prevent against this attack by obtaining their pinger results from a widely-published location, such as Usenet, though this does not completely solve the partitioning attack problem, and introduces additional reliability constraints on the quality of the pinger information. Additionally, many users retrieve from the pinger updated keys for the remailers at the same time they update their stats. The pinger\footnote{or an attacker performing a man-in-the-middle attack on the data retrieval session.} could manipulate the user into using keys other than those the user intended to. An attacker who controlled both the pinger used by his target, and a number of mixes in the network, could observe the target's messages moving through his mixes by performing a key-swapping attack with the pinger. By providing the target with a public key other than the one generally available for the mixes he controls, the target's messages would be easily distinguishable when processed by his mixes. % More attacks? FIXME % - most users also fetch keys with the stats % -> an attacker could not just give Alice a different list of nodes, but % could give her the same list only with a different key for his % remailers, so he can easily distinguish her messages when he seems them % at his node \section{Creating a consensus directory} The solution to the partitioning attacks mentioned in the previous section involves providing all clients with the same view of the network. Each pinger should calculate its results for the status of the network, and compare these results with those of the other pingers. The pingers then must agree on a compromise result which reflects an accurate view of mix availability, and provides every client with a consistent information with which to calculate message paths. Since the infamous FLP impossibility proof~\cite{filypa85}, it is known that a simple problem such as reaching consensus in the presence of faulty parties -- even if the worst they can do is to crash -- is rather hard, and a significant amount of research has been put into securing a distributed systems against faulty parties~\cite{schnei90,deblfa91}. In the Mixes scenario, the main parties for the agreement protocols are the {\em pingers}, i.e., the parties that maintain a database on the active mixes, their authentication keys and some of their properties. They need to agree on a consistent status of the {\em mixes} and then deliver it on request to the {\em clients}. As the clients should not be forced to contact more pingers than needed, each honest mix should be able to prove that the result it forwards to the client is in fact the genuine outcome of the agreement. Depending on the attack model, the solutions can be rather complex, and in many implementations weaker attack models are chosen to allow for simpler protocols . In the Mixminion protocol, for example, the agreement protocol can easily be circumvented by one (or several) parties stopping the communication after a while -- a condition that may be constructed even if none of the involved pingers is actually corrupt. The honest parties may recognize they are in a bad condition and alert the administrator, but it is left to human interference to actually recreate consensus; as the disagreement may be created without any party behaving obviously dishonest, this may place quite some burden on the administration. The protocol suite presented here will guarantee consensus independent of timing assumptions, as long as less than a third of all pingers behave actively malicious. For additional security, one can still add tests along the lines of the Mixminion protocol to detect inconsistencies and alert the administrators; however, if more than a third of the pingers are actively corrupt, the system is in a sufficiently bad state that its survival is questionable. \subsection{The Tools} In this section, we introduce the basic building blocks needed for our protocol. Due to lack of space, we do not give a formal model here. The protocols we choose where mostly developed within the MAFTIA project~\cite{maftiad26}; using new randomization techniques, these protocols are the first practical protocols that can deal with the maximum possible number of corruptions, and do not require any timing assumptions. \subsubsection{Binary Byzantine Agreement.} The basic protocol behind our consensus protocols is a binary Byzantine agreement protocol~\cite{lashpe82,cakush00}, which allows parties to agree on a simple binary value. In addition to agreement, the output value also must depend on the input values; in our case, this means it must be proposed by at least one non-corrupted pinger. We also want to obtain a proof of the outcome, so one single pinger can prove to an external party what the outcome of a particular protocol instance was. \subsubsection{Verifiable Multivalued Byzantine Agreement.} A multivalued Byzantine agreement protocol~\cite{ckps01} allows the pingers to agree on any bit-string, rather than only a binary value. As there is a (potentially) infinite universe of possible values, a multivalued Byzantine agreement protocol can no longer guarantee that the output of the protocol is the input of some honest party -- this would only be possible if all honest parties propose the same value. It is, however, possible to enforce that all honest parties verify the value prior to agreement, and thus guarantee that it satisfies some properties, e.g., that it has the expected format, or contains proper signatures that certify its validity. \subsubsection{Broadcast protocols.} Broadcast protocols~\cite{ckps01} are used to send messages from one sender to a number of receivers. In the simplest version, the sender simply sends the message to every other party (Note that in the Mixminion protocol, the receivers poll the messages, rather than the sender pushing them; for our purpose, this does not pose a significant difference). This simple protocol does not give any guarantees to the receivers, however; some may receive different messages, or no message at all. A {\em consistent broadcast}, or {c-broadcast}, guarantees that all parties that do receive a particular broadcast receive the same value~\cite{malrei98a}. It does not, however, guarantee that all parties on the group receive anything in the first place. A {\em reliable broadcast}, or {\em r-broadcast}, additionally guarantees that all parties receive the broadcast~\cite{bracha84}. Our model being asynchronous, there is no guarantee about the time; the only guarantee is that if one honest party receives the broadcast, eventually all other ones will. An {\em Atomic broadcast}~\cite{caslis99a,reiter94} primitive additionally guarantees that all honest parties receive all messages in the same order. This is a rather powerful synchronization mechanism, that deals with many uncertainties of the asynchronous network and the attackers. In principal, it is possible to build the entire database on top of such a protocol; for this paper, however, we have chosen dedicated protocols. \subsubsection{Threshold signatures.} Threshold signatures~\cite{shoup00a} allow parties to issue shares of a signature, which then -- given enough shares are available -- can be combined into one single signature. The nice property is that a threshold signature outputs the same constant length signature, independent of the actual number of parties or the subset of parties that did the actual signing. This not only preserves space and bandwidth, but also solves the key distribution system. A client does not need to know the public key of any individual pinger, nor the identity of the set of pingers, but can verify that a certain message was signed by a certain number of pingers by verifying against one, static, public key. The disadvantage is that the internal management of the group of pingers becomes more complex. If an old pinger is disabled, its key share must be invalidated. Similarly, a new pinger needs to get a new key-share, and all thresholds need to adapt. \subsection{The database update functions} Due to the different character of the data in the database, the pingers need four different protocols to maintain their database in a consistent state. \subsubsection{Update set of mixes.} The main functionality of our protocols is to maintain a consistent set of mixes. Furthermore, a client should easily be able to obtain that set, i.e., each pinger can prove that he gives out the correct set. This is where the threshold signatures are used; there is only one signature for all pingers, but a minimum of two thirds are needed to generate the signature. Thus, a client only needs one public key to verify she got a correct set of mixes, without needing to know which parties are in the actual set of pingers. \begin{algorithm} {\bf Protocol UpdateMixes} \begin{revpar} \item r-broadcast new list ${\cal L}$ of mixes \item wait for $n-t$ r-broadcasts. \item {\bf receive} a set ${\cal L}'$ of mixes \end{revpar} \begin{revpar} \item run multivalued BA protocol, using ${\cal L}'$ as an input \item {\bf receive} a set ${\cal L}''$ of n-t lists \item let ${\cal L}'''$ be the set of mixes that have been proposed by $t+1$ parties in the set. \item threshold-sign (\em date, ${\cal L}'''$) using a threshold signature scheme, getting the signature share$\sigma_i$ \end{revpar} \begin{revpar} \item r-broadcast the signature share $\sigma_i$ \item wait for $n-t$ such shares \item combine the shares to retrieve $\sigma$ \end{revpar} \end{algorithm} \subsubsection{Update set of pingers.} The protocol that updates the set of pingers is similar to the one that updates the set of mixes. However, for this protocol it is important to also update the shared keys, so that the old parties can not participate in any signing process anymore, while the new parties get shares that allow them to participate. An appropriate re-sharing protocol is described in~\cite{CachinKLS02} ; \subsubsection{Update database (externally).} With this function, the pingers can update information about a mix, most prominently its performance data. In the simplest case, this data is binary; in this case, a simple binary Byzantine agreement can be performed to determine a common value that has been proposed by at least one honest party. To avoid communication overhead, the agreements needed for all data on all mixes can be bundled; this leads to a protocol with message size linear in the total number of data items, and a running time logarithmic in the number of pingers. \subsubsection{Update database (internally).} This function is used to allow a mix to update database information about himself. Most commonly, this will be used to install a new key pair once the old one expires. It is relatively straightforward to implement this functionality, as the mix already has a key to authenticate itself. Assuming this is implemented properly (i.e., the signed messages are tagged properly), this can safely be used for database updates. The update protocol would be a simple {\em r-broadcast} of the a signed message requesting the update. This way, it is guaranteed that all pingers receive the same request, and the database stays consistent. To avoid race conditions, the mix also needs to maintain a serial number, so that all parties can be assured to receive all updates in the same order. Note that there exist protocols that can also enforce the all pingers receive all update requests in the same order; however, implementing this here may be overkill. \subsection{Attack Model} It is known that a simple problem such as agreement is quite hard in an asynchronous environment if some parties crash or otherwise do not follow the protocol. The only way around is to either rely on timing assumptions, or to use a randomized algorithm. Our choice is for randomization, for two reasons: Firstly, the randomized model appears to be better adapted to the Byzantine setting, where the corrupted parties actively try to disrupt the protocol. Secondly, we can expect realistic attacker in our scenario to launch denial of service attacks on the network, which timing based protocols have difficulties dealing with. The price to pay for the fully asynchronous network model is a lower tolerance. It can easily be shown that nothing useful can be done once a third or more of all parties are corrupted. In the mixes scenario, the main parties for the agreement protocols are the {\em pingers}; they need to agree on a consistent status of the {\em mixes} and then deliver it on request to the {\em clients}. As the clients should not be forced to contact more pingers than needed, each honest mix should be able to prove that the result it forwards to the client is in fact the genuine outcome of the agreement. \subsection{The Functionality} The primitives we have described can be utilized by the mix-net's independent components to perform basic network maintenance operations. Mixes can announce their existence to a small selection of pingers. After the pingers perform several instances of the UpdateMixes protocol, all the pingers will have learned the address of the new mixes, and independently confirmed their validity by sending the mixes a query which will result in the automatic return of their keys. After verifying a new mix exists, adding the mix's keys (which have been obtained directly from the mix itself), and confirming that the mix is properly forwarding packets by sending pings through it, the pingers will add the new mix to their list of known mixes. Once enough pingers list the new mix and its operational details it will be included in the consensus directory. The current Echolot pingers are able to add and remove mixes without human intervention, and Leuchtfeuer has been designed to integrate with the current pinger behavior. Leuchtfeuer restricts the information provided by pingers in one area where Echolot and the previously deployed pingers were unconstrained: in order to achieve consensus on the data associated with a mix, latency must be represented as one of a limited set of values, as opposed to being directly reported in units of time. Pingers should categorize individual mixes as being either "high" or "low" latency, and report them as such. Pingers using Leuchtfeuer will record reliability and performance information about the mixes as they currently do, though the interval between publication of updates available to mix clients will increase significantly. As opposed to being updated every five minutes, as is the current default in Echolot, Leuchtfeuer pingers will create a theshold signature on the consensus directory and publish the signed directory for the clients every 12 hours. While this potentially increases the risk of lost packets due to a mix going offline immediately after a consensus directory in which it was still listed is published, it limits the ability of a passive attacker to perform intersection attacks based on short-term pinger result fluctuations. Current mix clients do not perform any authentication on the data obtained by pingers, while in the Leuchtfeuer protocol, clients will need to verify the threshold signature to confirm that the consensus directory is authentic. This will not add noticeable additional complexity to the user experience. % \subsubsection{Protocols run by mixes:} % \paragraph{become\_mix:} % With this protocol, a new server tells the pingers that he would like % to become a mix % Parameters: pub\_key % \paragraph{renounce\_mix:} % With this protocol, a mix announces he does not want to be a server % any more. % Parameters: signature on the message % \paragraph{update\_pubkey:} % This protocol is used by a mix to define a new public key. % \subsubsection{Protocols run by clients:} % \paragraph{get\_mix\_list:} % \subsubsection{Protocols run by pingers:} % \paragraph{suggest\_mix:} % \paragraph{output\_mix\_list:} % \paragraph{make\_pinger:} \section{Conclusions} \label{conclusions} We have designed an agreement protocol suitable for use in the asynchronous setting presented by the public remailer networks, which enables mutually-untrusting pingers to come to present a unified view of the state of the remailer network, including the names, network addresses, and public keys of the existing mixes, which can be authenticated by the mix client by verifying just one cryptographic signature on the consensus data. Our protocol greatly restricts an attacker's ability to exploit information about a user's information service or directory to perform intersection attacks against him, and reduces the impact that pingers operated by an adversary can have on the mix-net. \subsection*{Acknowledgments} [Redacted] \bibliographystyle{plain} \bibliography{leuchtfeuer} \end{document}