-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 238
IPIP-0421: HTTP Delegated Routing Reader Privacy Upgrade #421
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
base: main
Are you sure you want to change the base?
Changes from 3 commits
7fba2e7
f01558f
f857f33
caede81
07967b3
f76c87c
0d2948e
6c76a33
2d800ad
18b258e
25242f6
b894279
ef341c1
0195260
23eb7d3
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Jump to
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,79 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: "IPIP-0421: HTTP Delegated Routing Reader Privacy Upgrade" | ||
| date: 2023-05-31 | ||
| ipip: ratified | ||
| editors: | ||
| - name: Andrew Gillis | ||
| github: gammazero | ||
| - name: Ivan Schasny | ||
| github: ischasny | ||
| - name: Masih Derkani | ||
| github: masih | ||
| - name: Will Scott | ||
| github: willscott | ||
| order: XXX | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| tags: ['ipips', 'routing', 'privacy', 'double hashing'] | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| ## Summary | ||
|
|
||
| This IPIP specifies new HTTP API for Privacy Preserving Delegated Content Routing provider lookups. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Motivation | ||
|
|
||
| IPFS is currently lacking of many privacy protections. One of its main weak points lies in the lack | ||
| of privacy protections for the Content Routing subsystem. Currently neither Readers (clients accessing files) | ||
| nor Writers (hosts storing and distributing content) have much privacy with regard to content they publish or | ||
| consume. It is very easy for a Content Router or a Passive Observer to learn which file is requested by | ||
| which client during the routing process, as the potential adversary easily learns about the requested `CID`. | ||
| A curious actor could request the same `CID` and download the associated file to monitor the user’s behavior. | ||
| This is obviously undesirable and has been for some time now a strong request from the community. | ||
|
|
||
| The latest upgrades to the DHT and IPNI have introduced Double Hashing - a technique that aims to better preserve Reader Privacy. | ||
| With Double Hashing in place Provider Records are encrypted and opaque to Content Routers. If presented with the original `CID` a | ||
| Content Router can decrypt the relevant Provider Records and serve them via the existing Delegated Routing API. | ||
| However in order to benefit from the privacy enhancement users need to change the way they interact with Content Routers, in particular: | ||
| - A second hash over the original `Multihash` must be used when looking up the content; | ||
| - Returned Provider Records are encrypted and must be decrypted by the client before using them; | ||
| - The client might choose to fetch additional encrypted Metadata from the Content Router. | ||
|
|
||
| This new way of interaction can not be fullfilled by the existing API. This IPIP is an incremental improvement to the HTTP Delegated Routing API that adds | ||
| new endpoints for serving encrypted content. The original API can still be used for not Privacy Preserving lookups. | ||
|
|
||
| Writer Privacy is out of scope of this IPIP and is going to be addressed separately. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Detailed design | ||
|
|
||
| See the Delegated Routing Reader Privacy Upgrade spec (:cite[http-routing-reader-privacy-v1]) included with this IPIP. | ||
|
|
||
| ## Design rationale | ||
|
|
||
| This API proposal makes the following changes: | ||
| - Adds new methods for looking up encrypted Provider Records and encrypted Metadata; | ||
| - Defines Hashing and Encryption functions and response payloads structure. | ||
|
|
||
| There are no ideomatic changes to the API - all data formats, design rationale and principles outlined in the original [HTTP Delegated Routing IPIP](./ipip-0337.md) apply here. | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| ### User benefit | ||
|
|
||
| With the new APIs users can protect themselves from: | ||
| - a malicious actor spying on the user by observing the user to Content Router traffic and then downloading the same data; | ||
| - the new API is a first step towards fully private HTTP Delegated Routing protocol that will eliminate IPNI as centralised observers. | ||
|
|
||
| There are no other functional improvements. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Compatibility | ||
masih marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| #### Backwards Compatibility | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| The new API will be implemented in [go-delegated-routing](https://github.com/ipfs/boxo/tree/main/routing/http) and will not introduce any breaking changes. | ||
ischasny marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| The API will be released in a new minor version. | ||
|
|
||
| ### Resources | ||
|
|
||
| - [IPIP-272 (double hashed DHT)](https://github.com/ipfs/specs/pull/373/) | ||
| - [ipni#5 (reader privacy in indexers)](https://github.com/ipni/specs/pull/5) | ||
|
|
||
| ### Copyright | ||
|
|
||
| Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/). | ||
| Original file line number | Diff line number | Diff line change |
|---|---|---|
| @@ -0,0 +1,107 @@ | ||
| --- | ||
| title: Routing V1 HTTP Delegated Routing Reader Privacy Upgrade | ||
| description: > | ||
| This specification describes Delegated Routing Reader Privacy Upgrade. It's an | ||
| incremental improvement to HTTP Delegated Routing API and inherits all of its | ||
| formats and design rationale. | ||
| date: 2023-05-31 | ||
| maturity: reliable | ||
| editors: | ||
| - name: Andrew Gillis | ||
| github: gammazero | ||
| - name: Ivan Schasny | ||
| github: ischasny | ||
| - name: Masih Derkani | ||
| github: masih | ||
| - name: Will Scott | ||
| github: willscott | ||
| order: 0 | ||
| tags: ['routing', 'double hashing', 'privacy'] | ||
| --- | ||
|
|
||
| This specification describes a new HTTP API for Privacy Preserving Delegated Content Routing provider lookups. It's an extension to HTTP Delegated Routing API and inherits all of its formats and design rationale. | ||
|
|
||
| ## API Specification | ||
|
|
||
| ### Magic Values | ||
|
|
||
| All salts below are 64-bytes long, and represent a string padded with `\x00`. | ||
|
|
||
| - `SALT_DOUBLEHASH = bytes("CR_DOUBLEHASH\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00")` | ||
| - `SALT_ENCRYPTIONKEY = bytes("CR_ENCRYPTIONKEY\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00")` | ||
masih marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| - `SALT_NONCE = bytes("CR_NONCE\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00\x00")` | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| ### Glossary | ||
|
|
||
| - **`enc`** is [AESGCM](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galois/Counter_Mode) encryption. The following notation will be used for the rest of the specification `enc(passphrase, nonce, payload)`. | ||
| - **`hash`** is [SHA256](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SHA-2) hashing. | ||
| - **`||`** is concatenation of two values. | ||
| - **`deriveKey`** is deriving a 32-byte encryption key from a passphrase that is done as `hash(SALT_ENCRYPTIONKEY || passphrase)`. | ||
| - **`Nonce`** is a 12-byte nonce used as Initialization Vector (IV) for the AESGCM encryption. IPNI expects an explicit instruction to delete a record (comparing to the DHT where records expire). | ||
| Hence the IPNI server needs to be able to compare encrypted values without having to decrypt them as that would require a key that it is unaware of. | ||
| That means that the nonce has to be deterministically chosen so that `enc(passphrase, nonce, payload)` produces the same output for the same | ||
| `passpharase` + `payload` pair. Nonce must be calculated as `hash(SALT_NONCE || passphrase || len(payload) || payload)[:12]`, where `len(payload)` is | ||
| an 8-byte length of the `payload` encoded in Little Endian format. Choice of nonce is not enforced by the IPNI specification. The described approach will | ||
| be used while IPNI encrypts Advertisements on behaf of Publishers. However once Writer Privacy is implemented, the choice of nonce will be left up to the Publisher. | ||
| - **`CID`** is the [Content IDentifier](https://github.com/multiformats/cid). | ||
| - **`MH`** is the [Multihash](https://github.com/multiformats/multihash) contained in a `CID`. It corresponds to the | ||
| digest of a hash function over some content. `MH` is represented as a 32-byte array. | ||
|
||
| - **`HASH2`** is a second hash over the multihash. Second Hashes must be of `Multihash` format with `DBL_SHA_256` codec. | ||
| The digest must be calculated as `hash(SALT_DOUBLEHASH || MH)`. | ||
| - **`ProviderRecord`** is a Provider Record as described in the [HTTP Delegated Routing Specification](http-routing-v1.md). | ||
ischasny marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| - **`ProviderRecordKey`** is a concatentation of `peerID || contextID`. There is no need for explicitly encoding lengths as they are | ||
| already encoded as a part of the multihash format. | ||
| - **`EncProviderRecordKey`** is `Nonce || enc(deriveKey(multihash), Nonce, ProviderRecordKey)`. | ||
| - **`HashProviderRecordKey`** is a hash over `ProviderRecordKey` that must be calculated as `hash(SALT_DOUBLEHASH || ProviderRecordKey)`. | ||
| - **`Metadata`** is free form bytes that can represent such information such as IPNI metadata. | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| - **`EncMetadata`** is `Nonce || enc(deriveKey(ProviderRecordKey), Nonce, Metadata)`. | ||
|
|
||
| ### API | ||
|
|
||
| Assembling a full `ProviderRecord` from the encrypted data will require multiple roundtrips to the server. The first one to fetch a list of `EncProviderRecordKey`s and then one per | ||
| `EncProviderRecordKey` to fetch `EncMetadata`. In order to reduce the number of roundtrips to one the client implementation should use the local libp2p peerstore for multiaddress discovery | ||
| and [libp2p multistream select](https://github.com/multiformats/multistream-select) for protocol negotiation. | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
| #### `GET /routing/v1/encrypted/providers/{HASH2}` | ||
masih marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved
Hide resolved
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. How is
|
||
|
|
||
| ##### Response codes | ||
|
|
||
| - `200` (OK): the response body contains 0 or more records | ||
| - `404` (Not Found): must be returned if no matching records are found | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
| - `422` (Unprocessable Entity): request does not conform to schema or semantic constraints | ||
|
|
||
| ##### Response Body | ||
|
|
||
| ```json | ||
| { | ||
| "EncProviderRecordKeys": [ | ||
| "EBxdYDhd.....", | ||
| "IOknr9DK.....", | ||
| ] | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Where: | ||
|
|
||
| - `EncProviderRecordKeys` a list of base58 encoded `EncProviderRecordKey`; | ||
|
|
||
| #### `GET /routing/v1/encrypted/metadata/{HashProviderRecordKey}` | ||
|
Contributor
There was a problem hiding this comment. Choose a reason for hiding this commentThe reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more. Same question about encoding as for HASH2 |
||
|
|
||
| ##### Response codes | ||
|
|
||
| - `200` (OK): the response body contains 1 record | ||
| - `404` (Not Found): must be returned if no matching records are found | ||
| - `422` (Unprocessable Entity): request does not conform to schema or semantic constraints | ||
|
|
||
| ##### Response Body | ||
|
|
||
| ```json | ||
| { | ||
| "EncMetadata": "EBxdYDhd....." | ||
| } | ||
| ``` | ||
|
|
||
| Where: | ||
|
|
||
| - `EncMetadatas` is base58 encoded `EncMetadata`; | ||
lidel marked this conversation as resolved.
Outdated
Show resolved
Hide resolved
|
||
|
|
||
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.