Re: Structuring the BKK spin bit discussion

Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com> Mon, 29 October 2018 23:08 UTC

Return-Path: <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
X-Original-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: quic@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1B39113104F for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:08:40 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.998
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.998 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: ietfa.amsl.com (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key) header.d=gmail.com
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 n4-gyvaXlBIe for <quic@ietfa.amsl.com>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:08:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail-oi1-x233.google.com (mail-oi1-x233.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::233]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id C8721131021 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by mail-oi1-x233.google.com with SMTP id u130-v6so3986138oie.7 for <quic@ietf.org>; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:08:37 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=hZ12PioNHhqMRXgSX1CCiw0F85WBGF7Gnl22oWgpkrE=; b=E6c8zFEeTQkomsqoNeubaU0W6px7ObLn7M3jV33CL9Au7bXaypiKcVLHE88SWiriab MgoWa/6UhY03Q1dRqIqfyYiM04O+QWGrkVuM9cu2xBNt2aRjHC0s/7iknsZX7aoSaqOw PO/K0eyU0U9OHb8DpO+x43f1m/WMT4hqV/u4Fj7e6k0mfr5PzyZ/s2VHT1Ji4s3tgCNO gIvhA/bNQf3ZDVNnrqosOvH889peaVYNqEFS3LXSDXRdINoe7QNNqjAUbGsx+1MqBDRI o3Xc8LI6FaOo8ORrRe61X+Q7cvsusbWB7ZPB8qxiaG+IB+7VLS6YEE3r0rBI2ECd17P1 7RVQ==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=hZ12PioNHhqMRXgSX1CCiw0F85WBGF7Gnl22oWgpkrE=; b=FT43wdpDkCFxcUNxB2Y8Ja99CWQUmvZiqt0Xpynif0oeDymNzUEHzLMjsb8W95rNJH THZ5ZCtOyGA9Uow6sl5exYTcLBEw6PwjvNsIeTIQymKH0x+Lk/A0hFvEsNk76dpakK7e 1EMyDOLfZwzlgmjh96ADBRK3Salp8I4jSVNl/1iicESpCs/X41wrrCBM/CSskqE61G9u g1UZIiGteQ2HvvjdYlCk/xkrHWUhyazcQZWcC4KsHvttCthGhj/30WygsMlmard7qW8g UResj9+oQ0m4ZJFWlu5aU1kTotxbZOtbMZwP9839S3CbcCPVGbPCL/JmiaA4ZkE3H8rz brxg==
X-Gm-Message-State: AGRZ1gI3hao2bYRJMcVJ8J8TfhSLpQCDKC5P1XdZXPlkR3nAZ+zEpWl3 QVsjaeRrVZUadLHiI5tFfC0pnb1djOopmpcYy+E=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AJdET5c0Hi1xNYzujBTeqINQQHUi/q/Ewic1ZSinIqzLnh3lfNdHNf9J+SYQ2pSJkSnTUbwnQy6V0ImRslm0EDMC2M4=
X-Received: by 2002:aca:3408:: with SMTP id b8-v6mr9040108oia.270.1540854516853; Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:08:36 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <18A2F994-0E82-48E4-875D-93C674483D49@eggert.org> <20181029160802.GD7258@ubuntu-dmitri> <8268B90E-F109-424C-91A8-DB7BFE208F53@huitema.net> <CABkgnnU7W-_o_EGZWpJvTGRSm0KiL-hS7q_oQ6kT3LBoNKHGhw@mail.gmail.com> <5E1AB9AC-D24F-4E0D-9925-57816C5314A4@trammell.ch>
In-Reply-To: <5E1AB9AC-D24F-4E0D-9925-57816C5314A4@trammell.ch>
From: Ted Hardie <ted.ietf@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 16:08:09 -0700
Message-ID: <CA+9kkMBb+-YYS3vvhvA1HZJuYZ7Q9cEBF=CW2FR08MPK0X=XoA@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Structuring the BKK spin bit discussion
To: Brian Trammell <ietf@trammell.ch>
Cc: Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>, Lars Eggert <lars@eggert.org>, IETF QUIC WG <quic@ietf.org>, Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>, dtikhonov@litespeedtech.com
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000020b937057966262c"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/quic/2mnfi2URULqonqt06oOyYtx7jkM>
X-BeenThere: quic@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Main mailing list of the IETF QUIC working group <quic.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/quic/>
List-Post: <mailto:quic@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/quic>, <mailto:quic-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 29 Oct 2018 23:08:40 -0000

Just to add one additional piece of data here that was the basis of a lot
of discussion in the design team:  consider whether the handshake alone
discloses the data you are trying to protect.  For the case where you are
trying to obscure a hidden path segment like a VPN, a comparison of
handshake time to expected time is almost certainly enough.

regards,

Ted

On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 3:58 PM Brian Trammell (IETF) <ietf@trammell.ch>;
wrote:

> hi Martin, Christian, all,
>
> > On 29 Oct 2018, at 23:29, Martin Thomson <martin.thomson@gmail.com>;
> wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, Oct 30, 2018 at 3:54 AM Christian Huitema <huitema@huitema.net>;
> wrote:
> >> I think the strongest objection to the spin bit was put up by Marten
> during the last interim: measuring the RTT with the spin bit discloses the
> use of hidden path segments like VPN. This issue was not discussed during
> the privacy analysis.
> >
> > I had assumed that was part of the analysis and it was covered by the
> > assumption that spinning could be disabled
>
> +1. Probabilistically disabling spinning, which seems necessary if we want
> some grease to help us reserve the right to change the semantics of the bit
> at the spin bit's location in the wire image, should ensure that endpoints
> that want to disable spinning for their own reasons will have a large
> anonymity set to hide in, even in a future with perfect implementation and
> deployment of the spin bit.
>
> >> One solution would be to remove the spin bit from the spec, trading off
> better privacy for worse management. I am considering another solution in
> which privacy sensitive clients hide the RTT by controlling the spin, for
> example spinning at fixed intervals. I plan testing that option in Picoquic.
> >
> > I've done a little thinking about this one, and it might conflict with
> > the natural signals the transport emits, along the lines of what
> > Andrew McGregor has mentioned on a couple of occasions.  If the spin
> > bit is enabled, then privacy-sensitive endpoints will need to make a
> > hard call regarding standing out.
> >
> > Note also that you probably can't hide the fact that you aren't at the
> > same network location as the address you are using.  Spoofing a
> > shorter RTT is impossible in general because you have to assume edges
> > that haven't arrived yet.  If there are no edges you expose the
> > charade.
>
> You cannot reliably hide the fact that you're not at the same network
> location as the address you're using, spin bit or no. Most of the methods I
> know of for detecting people trying to hide where they're coming from don't
> rely on RTT at all. (Yes, I'm a Netflix customer who relies on Hurricane
> Electric's tunnel broker for IPv6 connectivity, why do you ask? ;) )
>
> The recent academic work I'm aware of in this space (Weinberg et al "How
> to Catch When Proxies Lie", to appear at IMC this week) uses minimum RTT
> (with injected active measurement traffic) to conservatively draw exclusion
> circles to show that VPN providers that promise exits in certain countries
> probably don't actually deliver them. Not being vulnerable to this kind of
> exclusion analysis requires that you actually inject latency, not just in
> the spin bit, but over the entire flow (including the handshake).
>
> RTT *higher* (even much higher) than an expected range for a given address
> pair isn't reliable enough to derive any sort of verdict from, due to the
> nature of delay and delay variability in the Internet.
>
> So while I guess you can lie with the spin bit (even using rudimentary
> signal processing magic to take an assumed real RTT and make it look like a
> given lower target RTT, as long as you're not too worried about getting
> caught when your assumptions fail to hold), it's probably neither necessary
> nor sufficient to do so to hide a VPN exit. It's cheaper and more effective
> to just turn it off and hope.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Brian
>
>