* [bitcoin-dev] Bitcoin threat modelling thread
[not found] <CALqxMTEbRPsDLm=YkkEZWND6PnnWhS7DF5JNJdOF_AhsUPW1Ww@mail.gmail.com>
@ 2015-09-10 17:48 ` Adam Back
0 siblings, 0 replies; only message in thread
From: Adam Back @ 2015-09-10 17:48 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 12185 bytes --]
Hi
Came across this
https://groups.google.com/forum/m/#!topic/bitcoin-xt/zbPwfDf7UoQ useful
thread discussing Bitcoin threat modelling may reach wider audience on this
list.
Text from Mike Hearn:
think the next stage is to build a threat model for Bitcoin.
This mail starts with background. If you already know what a threat model
is you can skip to the last section where I propose a first draft, as the
starting point for discussion.
An intro to threat modelling
In security engineering, a threat model
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threat_model> is a document that informally
specifies:
Which adversaries (enemies) do you care about?What can they do?Why do they
want to attack you?As a result: what threats do they pose?How do you
prioritise these threats?
Establishing a threat model is an important part of any security
engineering project. In the early days of secure computing, threat
modelling hadn't been invented and as a result projects frequently hit the
following problem:
Every threat looked equally serious, so it became impossible to prioritise
Almost anything could become a threat, if you squinted right
So usability, performance, code maintainability etc were sacrificed over
and over to try and defend against absurd or very unlikely threats just
because someone identified one, in an endless race
The resulting product sucked and nobody used it, thus protecting people
from no threats at all
PGP is a good example of this problem in action.
Making good threat models isn't easy (see The Economist article,New Threat
Model Army
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/babbage/2013/11/internet-after-snowden>).
It can be controversial, because a threat model involves accepting that you
can't win all the time - there will exist adversaries that you
realistically cannot beat. Writing them down and not worrying about them
anymore liberates you to focus on other threats you might do a better job
at, or to work on usability, or features, or other things that users might
actually care about more.
You can make your threat model too weak, so it doesn't encompass real
threats your users are likely to encounter. But a much more common problem
is making the model too strong: including *too many* different kinds of
threats. Strangely, this can make your product *less* secure rather than
more.
One reason is that with too many threats in your model, you can lose your
ability to prioritise: every threat seems equally important even if perhaps
really they aren't, and then you can waste time solving "threats" that are
absurd or incredibly unlikely.
Even worse, once people add things in to a threat model they hate taking
them out, because it'd imply that previous efforts were wasted.
The Tor threat model
A good example of this is Tor. As you my know I have kind of a love/hate
relationship with Tor. It's a useful thing, but I often feel they could do
things differently.
The <https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en#stayinganonymous>Tor
<https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en#stayinganonymous>
project
<https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en#stayinganonymous>*does
<https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en#stayinganonymous>* have
a threat model
<https://www.torproject.org/about/overview.html.en#stayinganonymous>, and
it is a very strong one. Tor tries to protect you against adversaries that
care about very small leaks of application level data, like a browser
reporting your screen size, because it sees its mission as making all
traffic look identical, rather than just hiding your IP address. As a
consequence of this threat model Tor is meant to be used with apps that are
specifically "Torified", like their Tor Browser which is based on Firefox.
If a user takes the obvious approach of just downloading and running the
Tor Browser Bundle, their iTunes traffic won't be anonymised. The rationale
is it's useless to route traffic of random apps via Tor because even if
that hides the IP address, the apps might leak private data anyway as they
weren't designed for it.
This threat model has a couple of consequences:
It's extremely easy to think you're hiding your IP address when in fact you
aren't, due to using or accidentally running non-Torified apps.
The Tor Browser is based on Firefox. When Chrome came along it had a
clearly superior security architecture, because it was sandboxed, but the
Tor project had made a big investment in customising Firefox to anonymise
things like screen sizes. They didn't want to redo all that work.
The end result of this is that Tor's adversaries discovered they could just
break Tor completely by hacking the web browser, as Firefox is the least
secure browser and yet it's the one the Tor project recommends. The Snowden
files contain a bunch of references to this.
Interestingly, the Tor threat model explicitly *excludes* the NSA because
it can observe the whole network (it is the so-called "global passive
adversary"). Tor does this because they want to support low latency web
browsing, and nobody knows how to do that fast enough when your adversary
can watch the traffic between all Tor nodes. So they just exclude such
enemies from their threat model and that is why Tor is possible.
But even more interestingly, it turned out that their threat model
assumptions weren't quite correct. The NSA/GCHQ should, in theory, be able
to totally deanonymise Tor. But in practice they can't. When the time
finally came the 5 Eyes agencies attacked Tor by hacking the web browser,
not by exploiting their global observation abilities.
Tor has competitors - the commercial VPN providers. They have a rather
different threat model, where they explicitly don't care about application
level attacks like web sites looking at your screen size. They *only* care
about hiding your IP address. As a result their products work for every
app, and users can easily use Chrome or any other secure web browser.
Additionally they only add one hop of latency because the VPN provider does
not include itself in the threat model.
This solves for a different set of adversaries, but for many users it's
actually a more appropriate set and as a result VPNs are vastly more
popular than Tor is.
So to recap, we should build a threat model for Bitcoin because:
We have limited manpower and therefore must prioritise, sometimes brutally
Without a model anything can be a threat, so changes that are obvious or
look like technical no-brainers can get shot down due to the risk of absurd
or ridiculous attacks. This happens in Bitcoin Core *a lot*.
It will bring more formality and rigour to our thinking about security.
Proposed model
This is *a suggestion only*. I expect vigorous debate and for some people
to want a different (probably stronger) model. Models are just documents so
they can always be tweaked later, there's no need for v1 to be perfect.
OK. Adversaries I think we should care about in version 1, in priority
order:
Rational individuals and small groups, motivated by profit.
The "global passive adversary" as defined by the
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7624>IETF
<https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc7624>, motivated by a desire to map Bitcoin
transactions to people in bulk.
And that's it.
*The GPA*
The "global passive adversary" can mean intelligence agencies *but only
sometimes*. Specifically, it assumes they only watch and they don't
actively interfere. This assumption is of course not entirely valid - IAs
do sometimes engage in active attacks. My suggested threat model doesn't
include that activity because (1) it's hard to do anything about it and (2)
they much prefer to stay stealthy anyway.
Of course, in the Bitcoin system, there may be other GPAs. Anyone who
watches the block chain can potentially be such an adversary. Note the
careful wording: you have to be doing deanonymization *in bulk* to be an
in-scope adversary. This is to avoid including block explorers that have
notes features, people who build lists of well known addresses etc. We
can't stop people doing that: it's up to Bitcoin users to avoid telling the
world which transactions are theirs. It also excludes exchanges that are
trying to monitor transactions going in and out of their platform for
compliance purposes: they are not attempting to do this for the entire
system, therefore, they are not adversaries in this threat model.
*Individuals and small groups*
They are assumed to have hacking skills that are considered good by the
standards of ordinary hackers - they are not script kiddies. However they
are also not state-level hackers: they do not have an endless bag of zero
days that can exploit any imaginable device.
These attackers are motivated by profit. An attack that yields only
worthless pieces of data is not interesting to these adversaries: they want
to monetise. Attacks that involve some incredibly convoluted process to
turn data into money is also uninteresting: we assume a level of
rationality that means they'll ignore attacks with very poor effort/reward
ratios.
*Examples*
Here are some examples of attackers that would be in-scope for this threat
model:
✓ A hacker who is attempting to steal the contents of your Bitcoin wallet
✓ A mugger at a conference who is trying to identify rich targets to beat up
✓ A business owner who is attempting to discover the revenue of his
competitor
✓ A government attempting to build a map of every Bitcoin transaction to
people
✓ Someone attempting to profit off a quick market panic by short selling
BTC and then DoSing the network
.... and would not be in scope .....
✘ An actor who learns IP addresses of people using Bitcoin (reason: not
profitable, mere fact of use is not enough to build a GPA map)
✘ A short seller who needs to successfully root a specific, well run server
to cause problems (reason: without zero days it's hard to attack a fully
patched and locked down machine)
✘ A bitcoin exchange that demands proof of where your money came from
(reason: not global adversary)
✘ A government who wants to shut down Bitcoin globally (reason: active
state adversary, can't realistically stop this as they can always mine a
bogus chain)
✘ A government who wants to shut down Bitcoin in their own territory
(reason: active state adversary, can just find and arrest anyone
advertising BTC acceptance)
✘ A developer who wants to turn the block chain into a file sharing network
(reason: not rational, the resulting product would be terrible)
✘ A random individual learning the balance of wallets on random IP
addresses (reason: can't monetise with any reasonable effort)
.... and could be argued either way .....
• A developer who wants to use the block chain for timestamping lots of
data (can be seen as "motivated by profit", OTOH, actual threat is pretty
low)
• A miner who constantly tries to mine zero sized blocks or constantly
double spends against high profile merchants (can be seen as "motivated by
profit" but also not rational behaviour as it'd tank the price of BTC)
Obviously this stuff is subjective. We can argue about what "rational"
means for miners, for instance.
The goal of the model is not to be 100% accurate or a perfect prediction of
the future. It's just there to help people prioritise development efforts.
Should I work on *this* new feature or addressing *that* threat? A threat
model can help you decide whether it's worth it. People can still choose to
work on threats that are outside of this model if they want to, and we can
also choose to ignore threats that might be inside it, if the cost/benefit
ratio is really bad.
The exclusion of many types of government adversary might be controversial.
It's for practical reasons: governments have lots of very effective ways to
interfere with Bitcoin that we can't do anything about, like bank
blockades, and so far most of them seem to be taking a wait-and-see stance
anyway.
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 13726 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] only message in thread