Route Blinding (Feature 24/25) #765
Conversation
|
@t-bast on E2E issues with a sender requiring multiples invoices you may bound through some utxo-pinning stuff, like if we adopt Poodle (or any confidential-utxo declaration scheme) for dual-funding we may reused it for this. "To require a new invoice, announce me a another channel utxo or you don't have more than X invoices for one channel utxo registered". Maybe not for a v1 but something to explore ? |
That's an interesting idea, it would force payers to have some skin in the game (multiple channels). It's worth exploring! |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Achieved a new round, I think we should have a better model around recipient anonymity and attacker capabilities before to move forward.
I'm still skeptical about delegating relay parameters (cltv, fees) to an untrusted sender. We should assume such a a pair is a unique fingerprint across the network due to node relay policy heterogeneity. And sender sounds to be able to freely probe this "identifier" as you can screw up an onion path after this probed point.
|
Needs (trivial?) rebase BTW, due to conflict. |
Route blinding allows a recipient to provide a blinded route to potential payers. Each node_id in the route is tweaked, and dummy hops may be included. This is an alternative to rendezvous to preserve recipient anonymity. It has a different set of trade-offs: onions are re-usable, but the privacy guarantees are a bit weaker and require more work (e.g. when handling payment fees and errors).
Add specification requirements for creating and using blinded routes. This commit contains the low-level details of the route blinding scheme, decoupled from how it can be used by high-level components such as onion messages or payments.
|
Rebased. |
t-bast
force-pushed
the
route-blinding
branch
from
091dbb5 to
6e3b97c
Compare
|
We have successfully completed interop tests between eclair and cln, so this PR is getting ready to be merged! I have rebased it and squashed the last commits, please have a (hopefully) last look at it @rustyrussell and we'll be able to integrate it. It's been a while since we last integrated such a big change to the specification, I'm excited 😄 |
Add specification requirements for using route blinding to make payments while preserving recipient anonymity. Implementers must ensure they understand all those requirements, there are subtle attacks that could let malicious senders deanonymize the route if incompletely implemented.
|
Merging this pull request as discussed during yesterday's spec meeting. |
This is as of commit aed5518a80aade56218da87f92e0a39963b660cf Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
| - MUST create `encrypted_data_tlv` for each node in the blinded route (including itself). | ||
| - MUST include `encrypted_data_tlv.short_channel_id` and `encrypted_data_tlv.payment_relay` for each non-final node. | ||
| - MUST set `encrypted_data_tlv.payment_constraints` for each non-final node: | ||
| - `max_cltv_expiry` to the largest block height at which the route is allowed to be used, starting |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is max_cltv_expiry currently missing in the offers spec?
Edit: merged #1069 to clarify this
This is as of commit aed5518a80aade56218da87f92e0a39963b660cf Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <[email protected]>
| * Aggregated route relay parameters and constraints: | ||
| * `fee_base_msat`: 201 | ||
| * `fee_proportional_millionths`: 1001 | ||
| * `htlc_minimum_msat`: 1000 |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
For offers, we also need to compute the aggregated htlc_maximum_msat for the BOLT 12 invoice BlindedPayInfo. ISTM this field be included in payment_constraints? I don't see why it'd be present in BlindedPayInfo if it can't be aggregated from the per-hop blinded relay parameters/constraints.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I see what you mean, this is good feedback. I think it is unnecessary though to add htlc_maximum_msat to the payment_constraints (which would increase the size of encoded blinded paths). The recipient only needs to convey the smallest (most restrictive) value in the path once, in the invoice's BlindedPayInfo, that should be sufficient for the sender.
The recipient should use its liquidity estimation (especially for his local channels), combined with the channel_updates htlc_maximum_msat to set this value in BlindedPayInfo (and the size of the payment as well, if the payment is smaller than all intermediate htlc_maximum_msat, the invoice should simply set this to the payment amount). It is a good hint for senders to maximize payment success, but I don't think it should be a hard rule enforced by intermediate nodes: liquidity may shift before the payment is attempted, so the sender should be able to try sending more.
The only risk with that is if it can be exploited to unblind a path. If the BlindedPayInfo.htlc_maximum_msat is exactly set to the htlc_maximum_msat of one of the channel_updates from the blinded path, that can help the sender figure out who is inside the path. The recipient should fuzz BlindedPayInfo.htlc_maximum_msat to make sure it cannot be easily linked to existing channels.
Does that make sense? @thomash-acinq what are your thoughts on that as well?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I don't understand the original question (what is ISTM?) but payment_contraints and blinded_payinfo are completely different.
blinded_payinfo is an aggregate of the channel_updates along the path and as such contains the same fields that are found in a channel_update. And as @t-bast explained you may want to fuzz it a bit to make it harder to unblind the path.
payment_contraints do not correspond to a channel_update, that would be unnecessary as the relaying node is already checking the constraints from its channel_update. Instead payment_contraints are additional constraints chosen by the payment recipient. Actually payment_contraints is not really needed for intermediate nodes as the recipient will perform the check anyways, it just allows failing sooner without waiting to reach the recipient.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Thanks for the responses, that makes sense to me. I had thought the payinfo was aggregated from the payment_constraints, but I see that's not the case.
ISTM = "it seems to me", sorry!
Route blinding allows a recipient to provide a blinded route to potential payers. Each
node_idin the route is tweaked, and dummy hops may be included.This is an alternative to rendezvous to preserve recipient anonymity.
It has a different set of trade-offs: onions are re-usable, but the privacy guarantees are a bit weaker and require more work (e.g. when handling errors).
The main areas I'd like reviewers to focus on at first are:
update_add_htlcthat have a different length than otherupdate_add_htlc(which kind of gives away the blinded path if you're watching the network traffic)The attack scenarios that reviewers should focus on include (but are not limited to):