2012-05-31 00:50:53 +00:00
|
|
|
For git-annex to be able to clone its repo to another host, it'd be good to
|
|
|
|
have some way of pairing devices.
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-11 07:34:03 +00:00
|
|
|
## security
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-11 15:48:50 +00:00
|
|
|
Pairing uses its own network protocol, built on top of multicast UDP.
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-11 07:34:03 +00:00
|
|
|
It's important that pairing securely verifies that the right host is being
|
|
|
|
paired with. This is accomplied by having a shared secret be entered on
|
2012-09-11 15:48:50 +00:00
|
|
|
both the hosts that will be paired. Hopefully that secret is communicated
|
|
|
|
securely out of band.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(In practice, the security of that communication will vary. To guard against
|
|
|
|
interception, each pairing session pairs exactly two hosts and then forgets
|
|
|
|
the shared secret. So an attacker who tries to reuse an intercepted secret
|
|
|
|
will not succeed in pairing. This does not guard against an intercepted
|
|
|
|
secret that is used before the legitimate parties finish pairing.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Each host can construct messages that the other host can verify using the
|
|
|
|
shared secret, and so know that, for example, the ssh public key it
|
|
|
|
received belongs to the right host and has not been altered by a man in the
|
|
|
|
middle.
|
2012-09-11 07:34:03 +00:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The verification works like this: Take a HMAC SHA1 checksum of the message,
|
|
|
|
using the shared secret as the HMAC key. Include this checksum after the
|
|
|
|
message. The other host can then do the same calculation and verify the
|
|
|
|
checksum.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Additionally, a UUID is included in the message. Messages that are part of
|
|
|
|
the same pairing session all share a UUID. And all such messages should
|
|
|
|
be verifiable as described above. If a message has the same UUID but is
|
|
|
|
not verifiable, then someone on the network is up to no good. Perhaps
|
|
|
|
they are trying to brute-force the shared secret. When this is detected,
|
|
|
|
the pairing session is shut down. (Which would still let an attacker
|
|
|
|
DOS pairing, but that's not a very interesting attack.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The protocol used for pairing consists of 3 messages, a PairReq, and
|
|
|
|
PairAck, and a PairDone. Let's consider what an attacker could accomplish
|
|
|
|
by replaying these:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* PairReq: This would make the webapp pop up an alert about an incoming
|
|
|
|
pair request. If the user thought it was real and for some reason
|
|
|
|
entered the right shared secret used in the real one earlier, the
|
|
|
|
ssh key inside the PairReq would be added to `authorized_keys`. Which
|
|
|
|
allows the host that originally sent the PairReq to access its git
|
|
|
|
repository, but doesn't seem to do the attacker any good.
|
|
|
|
* PairAck: If the host that originally sent
|
|
|
|
the PairReq is still pairing, it'll add the ssh key from the PairAck,
|
|
|
|
and start syncing, which again does the attacker no good.
|
|
|
|
* PairDone: If the host that sent the PairAck is still syncing, it'll
|
|
|
|
add the ssh key from the PairDone, and start syncing, and stop
|
|
|
|
sending PairAcks. But probably, it's not syncing, because it would have
|
|
|
|
seen the original PairDone.. and anyway, this seems to do the attacker no
|
|
|
|
good.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
So replay attacks don't seem to be a problem.
|
2012-05-31 00:50:53 +00:00
|
|
|
|
2012-09-11 15:48:50 +00:00
|
|
|
So far I've considered security from a third-party attacker, but either the
|
|
|
|
first or second parties in pairing could also be attackers. Presumably they
|
|
|
|
trust each other with access to their files as mediated by
|
|
|
|
[[git-annex-shell]]. However, one could try to get shell access to the
|
|
|
|
other's computer by sending malicious data in a pairing message. So the
|
|
|
|
pairing code always checks every data field's content, for example the ssh
|
|
|
|
public key is rejected if it looks at all unusual. Any control characters
|
|
|
|
in the pairing message cause it to be rejected, to guard against console
|
|
|
|
poisoning attacks. Furthermore, git-annex is careful not to expose data to
|
|
|
|
the shell, and the webapp uses Yesod's type safety to ensure all user input
|
|
|
|
is escaped before going to the browser.
|
|
|
|
|
2012-09-08 17:34:50 +00:00
|
|
|
## TODO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
* pairing over IPV6 only networks does not work. Haskell's
|
|
|
|
`network-multicast` library complains "inet_addr: Malformed address: ff02::1"
|
|
|
|
.. seems it just doesn't support IPv6. The pairing code in git-annex
|
|
|
|
does support ipv6, apart from this, it's just broadcasting the messages
|
|
|
|
that fails. (Pairing over mixed networks is fine.)
|
2012-09-11 20:16:11 +00:00
|
|
|
* If there are three assistants on the network, and 2 pair, the third is
|
|
|
|
left displaying a "Pair request from foo" alert, until it's close.
|
|
|
|
Or, if the user clicks the button to pair, it'll get to the
|
|
|
|
"Pairing in progress" alert, which will show forever (until canceled).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It should be possible for third parties to tell when pairing is done,
|
|
|
|
but it's actually rather hard since they don't necessarily share the secret.
|