Authentication BIP

Authentication BIP
2016-08-08 17:09 ` Andy Schroder
  
From: Jonas Schnelli @ 2016-08-08 15:00 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin development mailing list


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 10379 bytes --]

Hi

As already mentioned in the recent BIP151 thread
(https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2016-June/012826.html),
I propose the following authentication scheme to basically allow MITM
detection and rejection in conjunction with BIP151.

The proposed authentication BIP does require BIP151.

The propose BIP does assume, node operators want to build trusted
connections for various reasons.

BIPs mediawiki github page available here:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...jonasschnelli:2016/07/auth_bip?expand=1

===================================================

  BIP: ???
  Title: Peer Authentication
  Author: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli•ch>
  Status: Draft
  Type: Standards Track
  Created: 2016-03-23

== Abstract ==

This BIP describes a way how peers can authenticate – without opening
fingerprinting possibilities – to other peers to guarantee ownership
and/or allowing to access additional or limited services.

== Motivation ==

We assume peer operators want to limit the access of different services
or increase datastream priorities to a selective subset of peers. Also
we assume peers want to connect to specific peers to broadcast or filter
transactions (or similar action that reveals sensitive informations) and
therefore they want to authenticate the remote peer and make sure that
they have not connected to a MITM.

Benefits with peer authentication:
* Peers could detect MITM attacks when connecting to known peers
* Peers could allow resource hungry transaction filtering only to
specific peers
* Peers could allow access to sensitive information that can lead to
node fingerprinting (fee estimation)
* Peers could allow custom message types (private extensions) to
authenticated peers

A simple authentication scheme based on elliptic cryptography will allow
peers to identify each other and selective allow access to restricted
services or reject the connection if the identity could not be verified.

== Specification ==

The authentication scheme proposed in this BIP uses ECDSA, ___secrets
will never be transmitted___.

___Authentication initialization must only happen if encrypted channels
have been established (according to BIP-151 [1]).___

The ___encryption-session-ID___ is available once channels are encrypted
(according to BIP-151 [1]).

The identity-public-keys used for the authentication must be pre-shared
over a different channel (Mail/PGP, physical paper exchange, etc.). This
BIP does not cover a "trust on first use" (TOFU) concept.

The authentication state must be kept until the encryption/connection
terminates.

Only one authentication process is allowed per connection.
Re-authenticate require re-establishing the connection.

=== Known-peers and authorized-peers database ===
Each peer that supports p2p authentication must provide two users
editable "databases"

# ___known-peers___ contains known identity-public-keys together with a
network identifier (IP & port), similar to the "known-host" file
supported by openssh.
# ___authorized-peers___ contains authorized identity-public-keys

=== Local identity key management ===
Each peer can configure one identity-key (ECC, 32 bytes) per listening
network interface (IPv4, IPv6, tor).
The according identity-public-key can be shared over a different channel
with other node-operators (or non-validating clients) to grant
authorized access.

=== Authentication procedure ===
Authentication after this BIP will require both sides to authenticate.
Signatures/public-keys will only be revealed if the remote peer could
prove that they already know the remote identity-public-key.

# -> Requesting peer sends `AUTHCHALLENGE` (hash)
# <- Responding peer sends `AUTHREPLY` (signature)
# -> Requesting peer sends `AUTHPROPOSE` (hash)
# <- Responding peer sends `AUTHCHALLENGE` (hash)
# -> Requesting peer sends `AUTHREPLY` (signature)

For privacy reasons, dropping the connection or aborting during the
authentication process must not be possible.

=== `AUTHCHALLENGE` message ===
A peer can send an authentication challenge to see if the responding
peer can produce a valid signature with the expected responding peers
identity-public-key by sending an `AUTHCHALLENGE`-message to the remote
peer.

The responding peer needs to check if the hash matches the hash
calculated with his own local identity-public-key. Fingerprinting the
requesting peer is not possible.

32bytes challenge-hash `hash(encryption-session-ID || challenge_type ||
remote-peers-expected-identity-public-key)`

`challenge_type` is a single character. `i` if the
`AUTHCHALLENGE`-message is the first, requesting challenge or `r` if
it's the second, remote peers challenge message.

=== `AUTHREPLY` message ===
A peer must reply an `AUTHCHALLENGE`-message with an `AUTHREPLY`-message.


| 64bytes || signature || normalized comp.-signature || A signature of
the encryption-session-ID done with the identity-key


If the challenge-hash from the `AUTHCHALLENGE`-message did not match the
local authentication public-key, the signature must contain 64bytes of
zeros.

The requesting peer can check the responding peers identity by checking
the validity of the sent signature against with the pre-shared remote
peers identity-public-key.

If the signature was invalid, the requesting peer must still proceed
with the authentication by sending an `AUTHPROPOSE`-message with 32
random bytes.

=== `AUTHPROPOSE` message ===
A peer can propose authentication of the channel by sending an
`AUTHPROPOSE`-message to the remote peer.

If the signature sent in `AUTHREPLY` was invalid, the peer must still
send an `AUTHPROPOSE`-message containing 32 random bytes.

The `AUTHPROPOSE` message must be answered with an
`AUTHCHALLENGE`-message – even if the proposed requesting-peers
identity-public-key has not been found in the authorized_peers database.
In case of no match, the responding `AUTHCHALLENGE`-message must
contains 32 bytes of zeros.


| 32bytes || auth-propose-hash || hash || `hash(encryption-session-ID


== Post-Authentication Re-Keying ==

After the second `AUTHREPLY` message (requesting peers signature ->
responding peer), both clients must re-key the symmetric encryption
according to BIP151 while using ___a slightly  different re-key key
derivation hash___.

They both re-key with `hash(encryption-session-ID ||
old_symmetric_cipher_key || requesting-peer-identity-public-key ||
responding-peer-identity-public-key)`

== Identity-Addresses ==
The peers should display/log the identity-public-key as an
identity-address to the users, which is a base58-check encoded
ripemd160(sha256) hash. The purpose of this is for better visual
comparison (logs, accept-dialogs).
The base58check identity byte is `0x0F` followed by an identity-address
version number (=`0xFF01`).

An identity address would look like
`TfG4ScDgysrSpodWD4Re5UtXmcLbY5CiUHA` and can be interpreted as a remote
peers fingerprint.

== Compatibility ==

This proposal is backward compatible. Non-supporting peers will ignore
the new `AUTH*` messages.

== Example of an auth interaction ==

Before authentication (once during peer setup or upgrade)
# Requesting peer and responding peer create each an identity-keypair
(standard ECC priv/pubkey)
# Requesting and responding peer share the identity-public-key over a
different channel (PGP mail, physical exchange, etc.)
# Responding peer stores requesting peers identity-public-key in its
authorized-peers database (A)
# Requesting peer stores responding peers identity-public-key in its
known-peers database together with its IP and port (B)

Encryption
# Encrypted channels must be established (according to BIP-151 [1])

Authentication
# Requesting peer sends an `AUTHCHALLENGE` message
  AUTHCHALLENGE:
    [32 bytes, hash(encryption-session-ID || "i" ||
<remote-peers-expected-identity-public-key>)]

# Responding peer does create the same hash `(encryption-session-ID ||
"i" || <remote-peers-expected-identity-public-key>)` with its local
identity-public-key
# If the hash does not match, response with an `AUTHREPLY` message
containing 64bytes of zeros.
# In case of a match, response with an `AUTHREPLY` message
  AUTHREPLY:
    [64 bytes normalized compact ECDSA signature (H)] (sig of the
encryption-session-ID done with the identity-key)

# Requesting peer does verify the signature with the
`remote-peers-identity-public-key`
# If the signature is invalid, requesting peer answers with an
`AUTHREPLY` message containing 32 random bytes
# In case of a valid signature, requesting peer sends an `AUTHPROPOSE`
message
  AUTHPROPOSE:
    [32 bytes, hash(encryption-session-ID || "p" ||
<client-identity-public-key>)]

# Responding peer iterates over authorized-peers database (A), hashes
the identical data and looks for a match.
# If the hash does not match, responding peer answer with an
`AUTHCHALLENGE` message containing 32 bytes of zeros.
# In case of a match, responding peer sends an `AUTHCHALLENGE` message
with the hashed client public-key
  AUTHCHALLENGE:
    [32 bytes, hash(encryption-session-ID || "r" ||
<client-identity-public-key>)]
# Requesting peer sends an `AUTHREPLY` message containing 64 bytes of
zeros if server failed to authenticate
# Otherwise, response with signature in the `AUTHREPLY` message
  AUTHREPLY:
    [64 bytes normalized compact ECDSA signature (H)] (sig of the
encryption-session-ID done with the identity-key)
# Responding peer must verify the signature and can grant access to
restricted services.
# Both peers re-key the encryption after BIP151 including the
requesting-peer-identity-public-key and responding-peer-identity-public-key

== Disadvantages ==

The protocol may be slow if a peer has a large authorized-peers database
due to the requirement of iterating and hashing over all available
authorized peers identity-public-keys.

== Reference implementation ==

== References ==

* [1] [[bip-0151.mediawiki|BIP 151: Peer-to-Peer Communication Encryption]]

== Acknowledgements ==
* Gregory Maxwell and Pieter Wuille for most of the ideas in this BIP.

== Copyright ==
This work is placed in the public domain.







[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-08-08 15:00 [bitcoin-dev] Authentication BIP Jonas Schnelli

  2016-08-08 17:42   ` Gregory Maxwell
  
From: Andy Schroder @ 2016-08-08 17:09 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3877 bytes --]

On 08/08/2016 11:00 AM, Jonas Schnelli via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> # ___known-peers___ contains known identity-public-keys together with a
> network identifier (IP & port), similar to the "known-host" file
> supported by openssh.


I have mixed feelings about strictly tying the identity-public-keys with 
a network identifier. I think the purpose of this is to detect if 
someone has physically stolen and compromised my bitcoin node and placed 
it on another network under control of an attacker. This seems to be a 
bit of a benefit, however, an attacker could always spoof the original 
network identifier anyway.

I run my bitcoin node on an internet connection that does not guarantee 
a static IP address (although it usually stays the same for several 
weeks or months at a time). I'd like to be able to make secure 
connections back to my own node, even if I know the IP address may 
change from time to time. There are several reasons for wanting to this 
with a changing IP. The first is because the bandwidth on my internet 
connection with a guaranteed static IP address is considerably more 
expensive than my internet connection without a guaranteed static IP 
address. The second reason is because the DNS PTR record for my static 
IP address is personally identifiable based on other reasons/services. 
The internet connection that my bitcoin node is using without a 
guaranteed static IP address just has a PTR record that basically 
includes my IP address and ISP name. This isn't much use to the general 
public (although my ISP obviously knows who I am). The third reason is 
that I consider it a good thing from a privacy perspective if my IP 
address changes every once and a while.

Maybe a strict check option where the identity-public-keys must 
optionally match a specific network identifier would be a compromise? 
Maybe this is up to the client implementation to decide, so it should 
just be suggested in the BIP rather than required?




> # ___authorized-peers___ contains authorized identity-public-keys

Is there an option for a wildcard here? Couldn't there be a case where 
the client wants to authenticate, but the bitcoin node does not care who 
it's clients are? This would be similar to many of the http based 
bitcoin block explorer API services that are out there. The API 
operators have built up some reputation, so people use them, but they 
don't necessarily care about who their users are.







> === Local identity key management ===
> Each peer can configure one identity-key (ECC, 32 bytes) per listening
> network interface (IPv4, IPv6, tor).

What if I have bitcoind listening on multiple IPv4 interfaces? Can I 
have a different identity-key for each IPv4 interface?

Also, would it be possible to only allow this authentication on specific 
interfaces? In my example above where I have two internet connections, 
if you don't agree to loosening the tie between the network identifier 
and the identity-public-keys, maybe I would just connect my bitcoin node 
to both internet connections, but only allow a few authorized-peers on 
the static IP (which would be low bandwidth), and then not authenticate 
on the internet connection with the changing IP at all

If you don't want to increase complexity by adding these options, one 
could always accomplish the same thing by runing two instances of 
bitcoind and pairing the two over a local network, it would just be a 
waste of resources.




> == Disadvantages ==
>
> The protocol may be slow if a peer has a large authorized-peers database
> due to the requirement of iterating and hashing over all available
> authorized peers identity-public-keys.


Does openssh have this same problem?

I'm assuming this could be parallelized very easily, so it is not a huge 
problem?







[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-08-08 17:09 ` Andy Schroder

  2016-08-08 17:54     ` Andy Schroder
  
From: Gregory Maxwell @ 2016-08-08 17:42 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Andy Schroder, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion

On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Andy Schroder via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> I have mixed feelings about strictly tying the identity-public-keys with a
[...]
> guaranteed static IP address. The second reason is because the DNS PTR

I don't see any reason that it couldn't also accept a DNS name there.

The purpose of that table is so the client knows which server ID to expect.

> I consider it a good thing from a privacy perspective if my IP address
> changes every once and a while.

And the design seeks to preserve that privacy.

> Maybe a strict check option where the identity-public-keys must optionally
> match a specific network identifier would be a compromise? Maybe this is up

The client must know the identity of the server it is expecting. The
server does not announce itself. If it did then your changing of IPs
would provide you with no privacy at all.

If the design is to provide any protection against MITM you need to
know who you expected to connect to in any case.

> I think the purpose of this is to detect if someone has physically stolen and compromised my bitcoin node and placed it on another network under control of an attacker.

Huh. No. Almost the opposite. The system is designed to inhibit
fingerprinting. You can't tell what identity key(s) a node has unless
you already know them. This means that if you don't publish your node
pubkey, no one can use it to track your node around the network.

> Is there an option for a wildcard here? Couldn't there be a case where the
> client wants to authenticate, but the bitcoin node does not care who it's
> clients are? This would be similar to many of the http based bitcoin block
> explorer API services that are out there. The API operators have built up
> some reputation, so people use them, but they don't necessarily care about
> who their users are.

Then they're just not listed in the file. The client can ask the server to
authenticate without authenticating itself.

> Does openssh have this same problem?

No. OpenSSH doesn't make an effort to protect the privacy of its users.

> I'm assuming this could be parallelized very easily, so it is not a huge
> problem?

It's not a issue because we're not aware of any usecase where a node
would have a large list of authenticated peers.

> Each peer can configure one identity-key (ECC, 32 bytes) per listening
network interface (IPv4, IPv6, tor).

I'm not aware of any reason for this limitation to exist. A node
should be able to have as many listening identities as it wants, with
a similar cost to having a large authorized keys list.


 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-08-08 17:42   ` Gregory Maxwell

  2016-08-09 10:02       ` Jonas Schnelli
  
From: Andy Schroder @ 2016-08-08 17:54 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: Gregory Maxwell, Bitcoin Protocol Discussion


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3229 bytes --]


On 08/08/2016 01:42 PM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 8, 2016 at 5:09 PM, Andy Schroder via bitcoin-dev
> <bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> I have mixed feelings about strictly tying the identity-public-keys with a
> [...]
>> guaranteed static IP address. The second reason is because the DNS PTR
> I don't see any reason that it couldn't also accept a DNS name there.
>
> The purpose of that table is so the client knows which server ID to expect.

Okay, that may be fine. You are saying otherwise you'd have to do a 
trial and error and this tying to a network identifier just speeds 
things up? If the DNS is spoofed, it's no big deal because the 
authentication will fail anyway?



>
>> I consider it a good thing from a privacy perspective if my IP address
>> changes every once and a while.
> And the design seeks to preserve that privacy.
>
>> Maybe a strict check option where the identity-public-keys must optionally
>> match a specific network identifier would be a compromise? Maybe this is up
> The client must know the identity of the server it is expecting. The
> server does not announce itself. If it did then your changing of IPs
> would provide you with no privacy at all.

Good point.

>
> If the design is to provide any protection against MITM you need to
> know who you expected to connect to in any case.
>
>> I think the purpose of this is to detect if someone has physically stolen and compromised my bitcoin node and placed it on another network under control of an attacker.
> Huh. No. Almost the opposite. The system is designed to inhibit
> fingerprinting. You can't tell what identity key(s) a node has unless
> you already know them. This means that if you don't publish your node
> pubkey, no one can use it to track your node around the network.

Cool.

>
>> Is there an option for a wildcard here? Couldn't there be a case where the
>> client wants to authenticate, but the bitcoin node does not care who it's
>> clients are? This would be similar to many of the http based bitcoin block
>> explorer API services that are out there. The API operators have built up
>> some reputation, so people use them, but they don't necessarily care about
>> who their users are.
> Then they're just not listed in the file. The client can ask the server to
> authenticate without authenticating itself.

Simple enough.

>
>> Does openssh have this same problem?
> No. OpenSSH doesn't make an effort to protect the privacy of its users.
>
>> I'm assuming this could be parallelized very easily, so it is not a huge
>> problem?
> It's not a issue because we're not aware of any usecase where a node
> would have a large list of authenticated peers.
>
>> Each peer can configure one identity-key (ECC, 32 bytes) per listening
> network interface (IPv4, IPv6, tor).
>
> I'm not aware of any reason for this limitation to exist. A node
> should be able to have as many listening identities as it wants, with
> a similar cost to having a large authorized keys list.
>

So you are saying that you agree with me that the original text needs to 
be revised slightly or I am just misinterpreting the original text?



[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 490 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-08-08 17:54     ` Andy Schroder

  2016-08-12 12:47         ` Jonas Schnelli
  
From: Jonas Schnelli @ 2016-08-09 10:02 UTC (permalink / raw)
  To: bitcoin-dev


[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1296 bytes --]

Hi Andy

>>
>>> Does openssh have this same problem?
>> No. OpenSSH doesn't make an effort to protect the privacy of its users.
>>
>>> I'm assuming this could be parallelized very easily, so it is not a huge
>>> problem?
>> It's not a issue because we're not aware of any usecase where a node
>> would have a large list of authenticated peers.
>>
>>> Each peer can configure one identity-key (ECC, 32 bytes) per listening
>> network interface (IPv4, IPv6, tor).
>>
>> I'm not aware of any reason for this limitation to exist. A node
>> should be able to have as many listening identities as it wants, with
>> a similar cost to having a large authorized keys list.
>>
> 
> So you are saying that you agree with me that the original text needs to
> be revised slightly or I am just misinterpreting the original text?

Yes. I think this limitation could be removed.
A responding node can have – in theory – multiple identity-keys per
network interface (network interfaces is also confusing, because you
could run multiple bitcoind instances on the same interface with
different ports).

The BIP should just make clear, that it is probably wise, to use
different identity-keys for each network interface (ipv4, v6, tor).

I'll try to overhaul that part.

</jonas>


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 819 bytes --]

 permalink raw reply	[|nested]
2016-08-09 10:02       ` Jonas Schnelli

  
From: Jonas Schnelli @ 2016-08-12 12:47 UTC ( / )
  To: bitcoin-dev




> Yes. I think this limitation could be removed.
> A responding node can have – in theory – multiple identity-keys per
> network interface (network interfaces is also confusing, because you
> could run multiple bitcoind instances on the same interface with
> different ports).
> 
> The BIP should just make clear, that it is probably wise, to use
> different identity-keys for each network interface (ipv4, v6, tor).
> 

I have updated that part of the BIP

-----------
Each peer can configure multiple identity-keys (ECC, 32 bytes). Peers
should make sure, each network interface (IPv4, IPv6, tor) has its own
identity-key (otherwise it would be possible to link a tor address to a
IPvX address).
The identity-public-key(s) can be shared over a different channel with
other node-operators (or non-validating clients) to grant authorized access.
-----------

https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/compare/master...jonasschnelli:2016/07/auth_bip?expand=1

</jonas>