----- Forwarded message from Jacob Appelbaum -----
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2013 00:22:54 +0000
From: Jacob Appelbaum
To: tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org, The Tails public development discussion list
Subject: [tahoe-dev] Tahoe-LAFS, Tor and Tails
Greetings from Berlin,
Leif and I have been working on ways to deploy, use and sync data with
Tahoe on Tails. Tails[0] is a live CD based on Debian GNU/Linux that is
supported by the Tor Project. It is intended to lose state after every
shutdown, unless a user configures it to keep certain bits of
information in a so-called Persistent container. This is usually a LUKS
encrypted partition on the same bootable medium that contains Tails.
To start - we worked through bootstrapping Tahoe on a Tails system - the
Tahoe package in Debian and thus available in Tails as of the Tails 0.19
release is 1.9.2-1. This is a bit older than we'd like, so we
bootstrapped from source with only a few Debian packages from the
packaging system.
Here is the git repo for the script that we used to bootstrap Tahoe-LAFS
on Tails 0.19:
https://github.com/leif/tahoe-tails-utils
The following ticket covers the overall issues of actually trying to
bootstrap Tahoe safely on any network at all:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/2055
The issues outlined in the above ticket should cover Tor users, though
likely it equally applies to a VPN user, an i2p user and really, anyone
barebacking with the internet.
Once this bootstrapping process was completed, we connected the Tails
machine to a Tahoe-LAFS grid that is Tor aware. The introducer runs as a
Tor hidden service. Each of the Storage Nodes also presents their
respective addresses as Tor hidden services through the previously
mentioned introducer.
We found that the open browser command uses the system browser included
with Tails. We weren't thrilled about the main browser being used for
local system daemon or system service related activities. I dislike that
it talks to the loopback interface, while other content it loads may go
over the Tor network or even try to do other things with stored data in
the browser or on the file system.
This ticket is an example of why total browser isolation is a good idea:
https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1942
We prefer that at least this browser data should be isolated from any
other web browsing I might perform with this machine. We wrote a quick
little hack to use a different profile - we added a wrapper called
`tahoe-browser` written in bash and stuffed it into
/usr/local/bin/tahoe-browser. We then set BROWSER in the environment to
point to it:
export BROWSER="/usr/local/bin/tahoe-browser"
This allows me to use `tahoe webopen grid-news/Latest/index.html` in a
completely separate browser profile. Hooray. What is grid-news? A useful
news service on our local Tor grid - any url would have the same issues
as noted.
Is this useful? Should we generalize this and add it to Tahoe? It would
be easy enough to extend src/allmydata/scripts/tahoe_webopen.py to do
this job with the addition of another small class. No such tahoe-browser
program would be required - though it surely wouldn't hurt to keep them
completely separated.
An interesting trick would be to put that browser profile itself inside
of a user's Tahoe grid. It would provide some on-the-go anti-forensics
and keep all Tahoe related url data, bookmarks and so on inside of the
grid itself. Leif isn't so hot on this idea because of Tahoe's Magic
Folders idea isn't implemented. Abstractly, I like the idea but I'm not
sure if it is practical.
As it stands, we've now managed to bootstrap Tahoe on Tails - so it is
basically possible to do all grid related activity over Tor. We don't
have to worry about exit nodes as we're using Tor Hidden Services for
all of the services. Though generally, I'm not really worried about Tor
Exit nodes in the context of Tahoe-LAFS.
In an ideal world, we'd use the Tails persistence feature to store a
user's Tahoe's introducer furl and a few other important bits. This
could then in turn be used to store all of the other Tails persistance
data - things like web browser history, .{ssh,gnupg,pidgin,etc}, and/or
even added Debian packages. To do this, we need to add persistence
support for Tahoe related configuration in Tails and we need to ensure
that Tahoe ships as part of Tails.
Here are a few bugs related to this in the Tails bug tracker:
https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/5514
https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/5804
Adding '/home/amnesia/.tahoe' to the Tails persistence seems to be
possible from an existing Tails system. We've filed a bug to add this
discuss adding Tahoe as a default option in the persistence
configuration dialog:
https://labs.riseup.net/code/issues/6227
There are a few interesting improvements that came up for discussion
during this process.
One such idea relates to changing the way that the Storage Nodes publish
data to introducers.
Wouldn't it be nice if we could reduce the authority of the introducer
even more? With a little bit of effort, we could ensure that an attacker
who learns about the introducer is only able to learn the number of
Storage Servers but not any other information.
For an all Tor Hidden Service grid with such an introducer, an attacker
who takes the introducer will learn very little beyond a rough count of
the total Storage Nodes connecting to that introducer. The clients are
all protected by Tor and the Storage Nodes are similarly protected by
Tor. The Storage Nodes would stay not only geographically anonymous as
provided by Tor but it wouldn't be possible to learn their .onion names
and even begin to have any way to connect with them at all. To do this,
we'd need to encrypt the furls shared by the introducer in some way.
This requires that clients share a symmetric key or publish a public key
or something similar. Thus the introducer could even be shared by a few
groups who do not trust each other. If we merge the multi-introducer
patch, heavily used by the i2p folks, we could really do interesting
things along these lines. These ideas obviously require a design that is
beyond the scope of this email.
Additionally, we thought it useful to extend Tahoe to be aware of a grid
that uses Tor Stealth Hidden Services[1][2]. This essentially adds a
layer of authentication between a client and a server at the Tor layer.
Thus even if an attacker were to learn of a Storage Nodes's .onion,
without the corresponding shared secret - no one will be able to connect
to the Storage node or even elicit a reply from that server. This is a
bit tricky in the sense that the Storage Node will make outbound
connections to the introducer - so Tahoe Storage Node client side
exploitation is probably a concern. However, if an introducer were
stolen, the Storage Node's .onion would not be useful to the attacker
without the Tor Hidden Service authorization keys. Those keys should
only be available on the Tahoe client's Tor client, and the Tor Hidden
Service Storage Server's Tor client and not on the introducer.
We of course want to ensure that Tails has the newest version of Tahoe -
though there is some debate about using Tahoe-LAFS or Leif's Truckee
Tahoe-LAFS branch. Any thoughts on this topic would be appreciated.
What else should we be thinking about?
All the best,
Jacob
[0] https://tails.boum.org/
[1] https://www.torproject.org/docs/tor-hidden-service.html.en
[2] https://www.torproject.org/docs/hidden-services.html.en
_______________________________________________
tahoe-dev mailing list
tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org
https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
----- End forwarded message -----
--
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
______________________________________________________________
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://ativel.com http://postbiota.org
AC894EC5: 38A5 5F46 A4FF 59B8 336B 47EE F46E 3489 AC89 4EC5
