Skip to content

GitLab

  • Projects
  • Groups
  • Snippets
  • Help
    • Loading...
  • Help
    • Help
    • Support
    • Community forum
    • Submit feedback
    • Contribute to GitLab
  • Sign in
BridgeDB
BridgeDB
  • Project overview
    • Project overview
    • Details
    • Activity
    • Releases
  • Repository
    • Repository
    • Files
    • Commits
    • Branches
    • Tags
    • Contributors
    • Graph
    • Compare
  • Issues 37
    • Issues 37
    • List
    • Boards
    • Labels
    • Service Desk
    • Milestones
  • Merge Requests 2
    • Merge Requests 2
  • CI / CD
    • CI / CD
    • Pipelines
    • Jobs
    • Schedules
  • Operations
    • Operations
    • Incidents
    • Environments
  • Analytics
    • Analytics
    • CI / CD
    • Repository
    • Value Stream
  • Wiki
    • Wiki
  • Members
    • Members
  • Activity
  • Graph
  • Create a new issue
  • Jobs
  • Commits
  • Issue Boards
Collapse sidebar

GitLab is used only for code review, issue tracking and project management. Canonical locations for source code are still https://gitweb.torproject.org/ https://git.torproject.org/ and git-rw.torproject.org.

  • The Tor Project
  • Anti-censorship
  • BridgeDBBridgeDB
  • Issues
  • #15517

Closed
Open
Opened Mar 31, 2015 by Isis Lovecruft@isis

BridgeDB considers IPv6 clients in the same /64 to be "in the same subnet"

And an IPv6 /48 is rather trivial to obtain. When discussing this in the IRC channel, several people immediately spoke up to say that they have an IPv6 /48 subnet, which is equivalent to 65535 /64s. The current code (from legacy/trac#4297 (moved) and this commit) at bridgedb.Dist.uniformMap() would allow anyone with an /48 to pretend to be a maximum of 65535 clients to BridgeDB (which would still allow them to request IPv4 bridges, as well as Pluggable Transport bridges, I might add) and obtain a maximum of 65535 unique positions within a distributor's hashring per period, allowing the bridges within most hashrings to be entirely enumerated within a matter of a few hours.

As for fixing this bug, I planned to use (both for IPv4 and IPv6) whatever logic tor uses for the EnforceDistinctSubnets option. However, as it turns out, there may be a bug in that logic (legacy/trac#15518 (moved)) with respect to IPv6.

I propose (from talking to people, and glancing at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPv6_subnetting_reference and https://www.arin.net/resources/request/ipv6_initial_assign.html) that BridgeDB switch to treating IPv6 /32s (the minimum ARIN allocation for an LIR) as distinct subnets, and treat clients within the same /32 as coming from the same IP address.

[This was discovered while working on legacy/trac#4771 (moved) and legacy/trac#1839 (moved).]

Assignee
Assign to
None
Milestone
None
Assign milestone
Time tracking
None
Due date
None
Reference: tpo/anti-censorship/bridgedb#15517