Re: [Ntp] Roughtime and Delay Attacks

kristof.teichel@ptb.de Wed, 03 April 2019 06:42 UTC

Return-Path: <kristof.teichel@ptb.de>
X-Original-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ntp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9F9F91200D7 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 23:42:18 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.899
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.899 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id nxF_tyYF58_4 for <ntp@ietfa.amsl.com>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 23:42:15 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mx1.bs.ptb.de (mx1.bs.ptb.de [192.53.103.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 1EC3E120059 for <ntp@ietf.org>; Tue, 2 Apr 2019 23:42:14 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (smtpint01.bs.ptb.de [141.25.87.32]) by mx1.bs.ptb.de with ESMTP id x336g696031344-x336g698031344 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=CAFAIL); Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:42:06 +0200
Received: from lotus.bs.ptb.de (lotus.bs.ptb.de [141.25.85.200]) by smtp-hub.bs.ptb.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 44D397A36B8; Wed, 3 Apr 2019 08:42:05 +0200 (CEST)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904021625120.18432@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
References: <CABUE3Xmg1vZedhEras54LC6WyChPhcZnqB2s1TNcMaoLbarkdQ@mail.gmail.com> <OFF21B3920.9A750F87-ONC12583D0.002454E6-C12583D0.00297785@ptb.de> <alpine.DEB.2.20.1904021625120.18432@grey.csi.cam.ac.uk>
To: ntp@ietf.org
Cc: Aanchal Malhotra <aanchal4@bu.edu>, Tal Mizrahi <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, Watson Ladd <watsonbladd@gmail.com>, Tony Finch <dot@dotat.at>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <OFD1EBEBD5.5B611EB8-ONC12583D1.0023D222-C12583D1.0024CF9E@ptb.de>
From: kristof.teichel@ptb.de
Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 08:42:23 +0200
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_alternative 0024CF9CC12583D1_="
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ntp/evRfEBZyCyj9SnL5GCsm0nKyw7M>
Subject: Re: [Ntp] Roughtime and Delay Attacks
X-BeenThere: ntp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: <ntp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ntp/>
List-Post: <mailto:ntp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ntp>, <mailto:ntp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 03 Apr 2019 06:42:19 -0000

Hey Tony and everyone,

I believe this idea sadly cannot work, due to the difference contexts of 
how Chronos resists delay attacks versus how delay attacks potentially 
affect the workings of Roughtime.
Chronos mitigates delay attacks (and, actually, all kinds of attacks or 
malfeasance) by evaluating time signals from many sources and using this 
large collection of data to make smart estimations about the true time.
Roughtime deliberately looks at the associations to single server and 
tries to judge whether (and potentially prove that) each single given 
server is showing signs of malfeasance.
Their aims and scopes are so different (looking at the whole system to 
find the best estimation for a global truth versusbasically performing 
audits of singular parts of said system) - I just don't see how to combine 
or borrow techniques in the way you suggest.

Best regards,
Kristof




Von:    "Tony Finch" <dot@dotat.at>
An:     kristof.teichel@ptb.de
Kopie:  "Tal Mizrahi" <tal.mizrahi.phd@gmail.com>, ntp@ietf.org, "Aanchal 
Malhotra" <aanchal4@bu.edu>, "Watson Ladd" <watsonbladd@gmail.com>
Datum:  02.04.2019 17:52
Betreff:        Re: [Ntp] Roughtime and Delay Attacks



kristof.teichel@ptb.de <kristof.teichel@ptb.de> wrote:

> - Roughtime (AFAIK) still needs to include some considerations of RTT in
> its analysis somehow (see below).

Maybe roughtime clients should use the Chronos clock selection algorithm,
because it is supposed to be resistant to delay attacks.

https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-schiff-ntp-chronos-02

Tony.
-- 
f.anthony.n.finch  <dot@dotat.at>  http://dotat.at/
North Foreland to Selsey Bill: Westerly or southwesterly 5 or 6, becoming
variable 3 or 4. Slight, occasionally moderate at first. Rain or showers,
occasionally thundery. Good, occasionally moderate.