mirror of
https://github.com/bitcoin/bips.git
synced 2024-11-19 18:00:08 +01:00
189 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
189 lines
10 KiB
Plaintext
<pre>
|
|
BIP: 151
|
|
Layer: Peer Services
|
|
Title: Peer-to-Peer Communication Encryption
|
|
Author: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli.ch>
|
|
Comments-Summary: Controversial; some recommendation, and some discouragement
|
|
Comments-URI: https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/wiki/Comments:BIP-0151
|
|
Status: Withdrawn
|
|
Type: Standards Track
|
|
Created: 2016-03-23
|
|
License: PD
|
|
</pre>
|
|
|
|
== Abstract ==
|
|
|
|
This BIP describes an alternative way that a peer can encrypt their communication between a selective subset of remote peers.
|
|
|
|
== Motivation ==
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Bitcoin network does not encrypt communication between peers today. This opens up security issues (eg: traffic manipulation by others) and allows for mass surveillance / analysis of bitcoin users. Mostly this is negligible because of the nature of Bitcoin's trust model, however, for SPV nodes this can have significant privacy impacts [1] and could reduce the censorship-resistance of a peer.
|
|
|
|
Encrypting peer traffic will make analysis and specific user targeting much more difficult than it currently is. Today it's trivial for a network provider or any other men-in-the-middle to identify a Bitcoin user and its controlled addresses/keys (and link with his Google profile, etc.). Just created and broadcasted transactions will reveal the amount and the payee to the network provider.
|
|
|
|
This BIP also describes a way that data manipulation (blocking commands by a intercepting TCP/IP node) would be identifiable by the communicating peers.
|
|
|
|
Analyzing the type of p2p communication would still be possible because of the characteristics (size, sending-interval, etc.) of the encrypted messages.
|
|
|
|
Encrypting traffic between peers is already possible with VPN, tor, stunnel, curveCP or any other encryption mechanism on a deeper OSI level, however, most mechanisms are not practical for SPV or other DHCP/NAT environment and will require significant knowhow in how to setup such a secure channel.
|
|
|
|
== Specification ==
|
|
|
|
A peer that supports encryption must accept encryption requests from all peers.
|
|
|
|
An independent ECDH negotiation for both communication directions is required and therefore a bidirectional communication will use two symmetric cipher keys (one per direction).
|
|
|
|
Both peers must only send encrypted messages after a successful ECDH negotiation in ''both directions''.
|
|
|
|
Encryption initialization must happen before sending any other messages to the responding peer (<code>encinit</code> message after a <code>version</code> message must be ignored).
|
|
|
|
=== Symmetric Encryption Cipher Keys ===
|
|
|
|
The symmetric encryption cipher keys will be calculated with ECDH/HKDF by sharing the pubkeys of an ephemeral key. Once the ECDH secret is calculated on each side, the symmetric encryption cipher keys must be derived with HKDF [2] after the following specification:
|
|
|
|
1. HKDF extraction
|
|
<code>PRK = HKDF_EXTRACT(hash=SHA256, salt="bitcoinecdh", ikm=ecdh_secret|cipher-type)</code>.
|
|
|
|
2. Derive Key1
|
|
<code>K_1 = HKDF_EXPAND(prk=PRK, hash=SHA256, info="BitcoinK1", L=32)</code>
|
|
|
|
3. Derive Key2
|
|
<code>K_2 = HKDF_EXPAND(prk=PRK, hash=SHA256, info="BitcoinK2", L=32)</code>
|
|
|
|
It is important to include the cipher-type into the symmetric cipher key derivation to avoid weak-cipher-attacks.
|
|
|
|
=== Session ID ===
|
|
|
|
Both sides must also calculate the 256bit session-id using <code>SID = HKDF_EXPAND(prk=PRK, hash=SHA256, info="BitcoinSessionID", L=32)</code>. The session-id can be used for linking the encryption-session to an identity check.
|
|
|
|
=== The <code>encinit</code> message type ===
|
|
|
|
To request encrypted communication, the requesting peer generates an EC ephemeral-session-keypair and sends an <code>encinit</code> message to the responding peer and waits for an <code>encack</code> message. The responding node must do the same <code>encinit</code>/<code>encack</code> interaction for the opposite communication direction.
|
|
|
|
{|class="wikitable"
|
|
! Field Size !! Description !! Data type !! Comments
|
|
|-
|
|
| 33bytes || ephemeral-pubkey || comp.-pubkey || The session pubkey from the requesting peer
|
|
|-
|
|
| 1bytes || symmetric key cipher type || int8 || symmetric key cipher type to use
|
|
|}
|
|
|
|
Possible symmetric key ciphers types
|
|
{|class="wikitable"
|
|
! Number !! symmetric key ciphers type
|
|
|-
|
|
| 0 || chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com
|
|
|}
|
|
|
|
=== ChaCha20-Poly1305 Cipher Suite ===
|
|
|
|
ChaCha20 is a stream cipher designed by Daniel Bernstein [3]. It operates by permuting 128 fixed bits, 128 or 256 bits of key,
|
|
a 64 bit nonce and a 64 bit counter into 64 bytes of output. This output is used as a keystream, with any unused bytes simply discarded.
|
|
|
|
Poly1305, also by Daniel Bernstein [4], is a one-time Carter-Wegman MAC that computes a 128 bit integrity tag given a message and a single-use
|
|
256 bit secret key.
|
|
|
|
The chacha20-poly1305@openssh.com specified and defined by openssh [5] combines these two primitives into an authenticated encryption mode. The construction used is based on that proposed for TLS by Adam Langley [6], but differs in the layout of data passed to the MAC and in the addition of encyption of the packet lengths.
|
|
|
|
<code>K_1</code> must be used to only encrypt the payload size of the encrypted message to avoid leaking information by revealing the message size.
|
|
|
|
<code>K_2</code> must be used in conjunction with poly1305 to build an AEAD.
|
|
|
|
Optimized implementations of ChaCha20-Poly1305 are very fast in general, therefore it is very likely that encrypted messages require less CPU cycles per byte then the current unencrypted p2p message format. A quick analysis by Pieter Wuille of the current ''standard implementations'' has shown that SHA256 requires more CPU cycles per byte then ChaCha20 & Poly1304.
|
|
|
|
=== The <code>encack</code> message type ===
|
|
|
|
The responding peer accepts the encryption request by sending an <code>encack</code> message.
|
|
|
|
{|class="wikitable"
|
|
! Field Size !! Description !! Data type !! Comments
|
|
|-
|
|
| 33bytes || ephemeral-pubkey || comp.-pubkey || The session pubkey from the responding peer
|
|
|}
|
|
|
|
At this point, the shared secret key for the symmetric key cipher must be calculated by using ECDH (own privkey x remote pub key).
|
|
Private keys will never be transmitted. The shared secret can only be calculated if an attacker knows at least one private key and the remote peer's public key.
|
|
|
|
* '''The <code>encinit</code>/<code>encack</code> interaction must be done from both sides.'''
|
|
* Each communication direction uses its own secret key for the symmetric cipher.
|
|
* The second <code>encinit</code> request (from the responding peer) must use the same symmetric cipher type.
|
|
* All unencrypted messages before the second <code>encack</code> response (from the responding peer) must be ignored.
|
|
* After a successful <code>encinit</code>/<code>encack</code> interaction, the "encrypted messages structure" must be used. Non-encrypted messages from the requesting peer must lead to a connection termination.
|
|
|
|
After a successful <code>encinit</code>/<code>encack</code> interaction from both sides, the messages format must use the "encrypted messages structure". Non-encrypted messages from the requesting peer must lead to a connection termination (can be detected by the 4 byte network magic in the unencrypted message structure).
|
|
|
|
=== Encrypted Messages Structure ===
|
|
|
|
{|class="wikitable"
|
|
! Field Size !! Description !! Data type !! Comments
|
|
|-
|
|
| 4 || length || uint32_t || Length of ciphertext payload in number of bytes
|
|
|-
|
|
| ? || ciphertext payload || ? || One or many ciphertext command & message data
|
|
|-
|
|
| 16 || MAC tag || ? || 128bit MAC-tag
|
|
|}
|
|
|
|
Encrypted messages do not have the 4byte network magic.
|
|
|
|
The maximum message length needs to be chosen carefully. The 4 byte length field can lead to a required message buffer of 4 GiB.
|
|
Processing the message before the authentication succeeds must not be done.
|
|
|
|
The 4byte sha256 checksum is no longer required because the AEAD.
|
|
|
|
Both peers need to track the message sequence number (uint32) of sent messages to the remote peer for building a 64 bit symmetric cipher IV. Sequence numbers are allowed to overflow to zero after 4294967295 (2^32-1).
|
|
|
|
The encrypted payload will result decrypted in one or many unencrypted messages:
|
|
|
|
{|class="wikitable"
|
|
! Field Size !! Description !! Data type !! Comments
|
|
|-
|
|
| ? || command || varlen || ASCII string identifying the packet content, we are using varlen in the encrypted messages.
|
|
|-
|
|
| 4 || length || uint32_t || Length of plaintext payload
|
|
|-
|
|
| ? || payload || ? || The actual data
|
|
|}
|
|
If more data is present, another message must be deserialized. There is no explicit amount-of-messages integer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
=== Re-Keying ===
|
|
|
|
A responding peer can inform the requesting peer over a re-keying with an <code>encack</code> message containing 33byte of zeros to indicate that all encrypted message following after this <code>encack</code> message will be encrypted with ''the next symmetric cipher key''.
|
|
|
|
The new symmetric cipher key will be calculated by <code>SHA256(SHA256(session_id || old_symmetric_cipher_key))</code>.
|
|
|
|
Re-Keying interval is a peer policy with a minimum timespan of 10 seconds.
|
|
|
|
The Re-Keying must be done after every 1GB of data sent or received (recommended by RFC4253 SSH Transport).
|
|
|
|
=== Risks ===
|
|
|
|
The encryption does not include an identity authentication scheme. This BIP does not cover a proposal to avoid MITM attacks during the encryption initialization.
|
|
|
|
Identity authentication will be covered in another BIP and will presume communication encryption after this BIP.
|
|
|
|
== Compatibility ==
|
|
|
|
This proposal is backward compatible. Non-supporting peers will ignore the <code>encinit</code> messages.
|
|
|
|
== Reference implementation ==
|
|
|
|
== References ==
|
|
|
|
* [1] https://e-collection.library.ethz.ch/eserv/eth:48205/eth-48205-01.pdf
|
|
* [2] HKDF (RFC 5869) https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc5869
|
|
* [3] ChaCha20 https://cr.yp.to/chacha/chacha-20080128.pdf
|
|
* [4] Poly1305 https://cr.yp.to/mac/poly1305-20050329.pdf
|
|
* [5] https://github.com/openssh/openssh-portable/blob/05855bf2ce7d5cd0a6db18bc0b4214ed5ef7516d/PROTOCOL.chacha20poly1305
|
|
* [6] "ChaCha20 and Poly1305 based Cipher Suites for TLS", Adam Langley https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-agl-tls-chacha20poly1305-03
|
|
|
|
== Acknowledgements ==
|
|
* Pieter Wuille and Gregory Maxwell for most of the ideas in this BIP.
|
|
|
|
== Copyright ==
|
|
This work is placed in the public domain.
|
|
|
|
|