--- /dev/null
+This is the security documentation for tinc, a Virtual Private Network daemon.
+
+ Copyright 2000 Guus Sliepen <guus@sliepen.warande.net>,
+ 2000 Ivo Timmmermans <itimmermans@bigfoot.com>
+
+ Permission is granted to make and distribute verbatim copies of
+ this documentation provided the copyright notice and this
+ permission notice are preserved on all copies.
+
+ Permission is granted to copy and distribute modified versions of
+ this documentation under the conditions for verbatim copying,
+ provided that the entire resulting derived work is distributed
+ under the terms of a permission notice identical to this one.
+
+ $Id: SECURITY,v 1.1.2.1 2000/09/17 19:57:39 guus Exp $
+
+
+1. Authentication
+------------------
+
+Authentication in tinc will be done in a way that is very similar to the way
+the SSH (Secure SHell) authentication protocol works. It is based on public
+key cryptography.
+
+Every tinc host has it's own public/private key pair. Suppose there are two
+tinc hosts, A and B. If A and B trust each other, they store a copy of
+eachothers public key (in the same way passphrases were stored in versions
+of tinc <= 1.0pre2). They know these public keys beforehand, and the origin
+of the public keys has to be known for sure.
+
+To make sure that when a connection is made from A to B that B knows A is
+really who he claims to be, B encrypts a totally random string of bytes with
+A's public key. B also calculates the hash value from the unencrypted random
+string. B then sends the encrypted string to A. A then has to decrypt the
+string, calculate the hash value from that string and send it back to B. Since
+only he who possesses A's private key can decrypt this string, only he can send
+back the correct hash value. So, if B receives the same hash value he
+calculated himself, he knows for sure A is A.
+
+Both SSH and tinc use RSA for the public key cryptography. SSH uses MD5 as a
+secure hash algorithm, tinc uses SHA1. The reason for our choice of SHA1 is
+the fact that SHA1 is 160 bits instead of 128 (MD5), which makes brute force
+attacks harder. Also, the OpenSSL documentation recommends SHA1.
+
+2. Key exchange
+----------------
+
+The rest of the meta connection in tinc will be encrypted with a symmetric
+block cipher, since RSA is not really suited for this. When a connection is
+made, both sides have to agree on a key for this block cipher. To make sure
+that this key exchange is also done securely, and no man-in-the-middle attack
+is possible, RSA would be the best choice for exchanging keys.
+
+Instead of doing RSA encryption again, tinc will use a part of the random
+string that was exchanged during the authentication phase as the key for the
+symmetric cipher. Some symmetric ciphers require a random initialisation vector
+for improved security. This vector can be taken from the random string as well.
+
+Is this secure? I (Guus Sliepen) think at this moment that it is:
+
+- Since the random string cannot be decrypted by anyone eavesdropping or
+ playing man-in-the-middle, the symmetric key cannot be known by sniffing.
+- The unencrypted returned hash value is supposed to be cryptographically
+ secure. Furthermore, it can only at most give a way 160 bits of information
+ from the complete random string which is longer than the key for the
+ symmetric cipher, so very few bits will actualy contain information about
+ the symmetric cipher key alone, if any.
+- If the RSA encryption is cracked, the rest of the communications can be
+ decrypted anyway.
+- If the symmetric cipher encryption is cracked without using the information
+ from the encrypted random strings or the hash values, this still won't give
+ the full plaintext for the random string, so it won't facilitate a known-
+ plaintext attack on the RSA encryption.
+- RSA and symmetric ciphers are fundamentally different. It is very unlikely
+ that the overlap of both will create any interference that will facilitate
+ an easier-than-brute-force attack.
+
+Other options for key exchange could be:
+
+* A second exchange of RSA encrypted random strings.
+ This is equal to the former scheme just without knowing the hash value of
+ the unecrypted random string.
+
+* Diffie-Hellman with RSA signing.
+ This should be very secure, but there are a lot of pitholes with using both
+ encryption with public keys and private keys together with the same keypair.
+
+* Diffie-Hellman with passphrases.
+ This is what tinc <= 1.0pre2 used to do. Passphrases are secret, exchanging
+ them must be done with great care, nobody may eavesdrop. Exchanging public
+ keys on the other hand is much safer, everybody may eavesdrop, just as long
+ as you are sure that the public key itself belongs to the right owner.
projects / meshlink / commitdiff