September 16, 2016

Private Service Discovery

I was recently using Wireshark [1] to debug a protocol issue with a CCN application and stumbled across some interesting traffic coming from my machine. Every 30 seconds my box would broadcast a packet to the LAN (255.255.255.255) and get a response back (from my own machine). This is part of the Dropbox LAN sync Discovery Protocol [2]. The contents of this packet are shown below.

Wireshark screenshot of the Dropbox LAN Sync protocol

Inside the broadcast UDP packet is a JSON object which contains the following fields: “host_int”, “version”, “displayname”, “port”, and “namespaces.” The last one was particularly troubling. According to [2], namespaces are unique identifiers for the roots or mount points of directories owned by a user. Files are then identified by a namespace and the relative path. (In actuality, files are described in pieces by a collection of SHA-256 fingerprints of each piece. This lets us use a Merkle tree to determine when two files are identical and, when they are not, efficiently synchronize their contents.)

According to [2], these discovery requests are broadcast to the LAN in hopes that another machine which happens to own the same namespaces can be used to more efficiently synchronize data. If another machine on the LAN owns the same namespaces then it responds. (Or other machines always respond and the requestor computes the namespace intersection to determine matching machines. Both of these are approaches are equivalent so the details are not important.) The machines then synchronize their respective namespaces. If this does not happen, the machine pulls its data from the cloud. This is illustrated below.

Dropbox LAN Sync Protocol

Hijacking Namespaces

By now the alarm should be ringing if you’ve closely inspected these discovery packets. They contain no form of authentication, i.e., no signature or MAC. What does this mean? Anyone can advertise any namespace they want and initiate a synchronization event with a victim machine. Consider the following attack: A passive eavesdropper listening for these discovery packets can collect all of the observed namespaces and then, in one fowl swoop, start to echo them back in forged responses. This will cause the victim(s) to try and synchronize the claimed namespaces with the attacker machine. The attacker has, in effect, tried to hijack the namespaces.

Fortunately, Dropbox vetts ownership of namespaces by distributing certificates (and private keys) to each client. To syncrhonize between machines, the responder runs a LAN sync server to which the requestor connects over over TLS. Moreover, in the initial handshake, the requestor specifies the SNI (Server Name Indication) of the target to be the namespace to be synchronized. The SNI allows the server to use the correct certificate when completing the TLS handshake, since the server might have control over more than namespace and thus carry multiple certificates. The TLS handshake will therefore only complete if the server can verify ownership of the namespace private key. And once the TLS session is created, the client and server run their synchronization protocol. The details of which are not important here.

This reduces the security of the synchronization protocol to TLS between a client and server using the same certificate. While TLS may be the most important protocol in use today, it’s certainly not free of design and implementation problems. Everything from complicated timing attacks on the MAC computations (Lucky13) to often simple compression-based padding oracle attacks (CRIME and BREACH). Ivan Ristic put together a comprehensive list of the history of SSL/TLS here. The attacks I’ve listed only scratch the surface.

Validated Advertisements

If you’re like me, you’re not comfortable with something as brittle as TLS being the only thing standing between a local attacker and your sensitive data. We need defense in depth, and a good place to start is with the root of the problem: advertisements are not authenticated. And beyond the computation cost, I don’t quite understand why. Recall that each namespace has an associated certificate with it. That means that each namespace advertisement could have a signature associated with it. The verification key would be implicitly identified by the namespace identifier. The receiver of an advertisement would then verify the signature of each matching namespace in the message. If does not need to verify namespaces with which it has no chance of synchronizing.

This would give us a better security cushion than what’s currently done. But there’s an obvious performance penalty here. A client with namespaces must perform, in the worst case, signature verifications in response to a discovery. An attacker can easily make this happen by using garbage data for the namespace signature in each namespace advertised by the client.

This may seem problematic at first. But before jumping to conclusions, what exactly is the overhead? I put together some code to profile the signature verification costs using ECDSA. (I just chose this because it’s known to perform well, or at least comparatively better than RSA and DSA signatures.) You can run it to check the numbers on your machine. The total verification time for up to 100 namespaces is plotted below (in microseconds).

ECDSA Signature Verification Time

My laptop only advertises 31 namespaces every 30 seconds, which, according to my data, would require 0.063s to verify to completion. That’s not too bad. But if your Dropbox space is huge, you own many different folders, or if you are involved in many shared folders, this can grow without bound. As the data indicates, this can become therefore prohibitvely expensive. If there were ever a list of rules for deciding how much cryptography should be used to solve a problem, near the tope of that list it should read, “never do an unbounded number of cryptographic operations.” So it makes sense that Dropbox doesn’t use signatures to verify namespace ownership. Doing so would create a negative incentive to become involved in more shared folders or make better use of their service since it would come with an added computational cost. (Of course, one could always disable LAN sync protocol in the first place. But let’s not be crazy. ;))

An Different Solution with Privacy

The hijacking attack described above is possible because anyone sitting on the network can intercept the namespace announcements and then replay them to victim clients. But if what if that was not the case? What if the announcements were only available to those authorized to use them? A recent paper by Wu et al. [3] from Stanford described a solution like this. The basic idea is to have servers encrypt service announcements using a flavor of identity-based encryption called prefix-encryption. For example, they assume a framework wherein users are organized into hierarchical namespaces such as /bob, /bob/family/, etc. These prefix strings are then the public keys (in the IBE sense) used to encrypt the service announcements. This means that any entity who belongs to this hierarchical namespace and therefore has the corresponding secret key can decrypt the advertisement and obtain the information. (In their work, the service announcement contains the key material necessary to perform create a 0-RTT session with the service provider. But in general, the contents are not important to this discussion.)

The only problem with this approach is that it suffers from the same unbounded computation problem described above. Specifically, in order for a client to recover a service announcement, they have to attempt to decrypt each one and see if it fails. If they belong to multiple namespaces, then the problem is worsened since they have to perform multiple decryptions per namespace. Including the namespace identifier with the announcement would alleviate the problem, but it would not longer make the scheme private (as they successfully achieve right now).

So I suppose that’s the problem to be working on: how can we enable private service discovery without this potentially unbounded computational overhead?

References