This isn't actually much of an issue, since only relays send
AUTHENTICATE cells, but while we're removing timestamps, we might as
well do this too.
Part of proposal 222. I didn't take the approach in the proposal of
using a time-based HMAC, since that was a bad-prng-mitigation hack
from SSL3, and in real life, if you don't have a good RNG, you're
hopeless as a Tor server.
For now, round down to the nearest 10 minutes. Later, eliminate entirely by
setting a consensus parameter.
(This rounding is safe because, in 0.2.2, where the timestamp mattered,
REND_REPLAY_TIME_INTERVAL was a nice generous 60 minutes.)
This would make us do testing circuits "even when cbt is disabled by
consensus, or when we're a directory authority, or when we've failed
to write cbt history to our state file lately." (Roger's words.)
This is a fix for 9671 and an improvement in our fix for 5049.
The original misbehavior was in 0.2.2.14-alpha; the incomplete
fix was in 0.2.3.17-beta.
The spec requires them to do so, and not doing so creates a situation
where they can't send-test because relays won't extend to them because
of the other part of bug 9546.
Fixes bug 9546; bugfix on 0.2.3.6-alpha.
The spec requires them to do so, and not doing so creates a situation
where they can't send-test because relays won't extend to them because
of the other part of bug 9546.
Fixes bug 9546; bugfix on 0.2.3.6-alpha.
Relays previously, when initiating a connection, would only send a
NETINFO after sending an AUTHENTICATE. But bridges, when receiving a
connection, would never send AUTH_CHALLENGE. So relays wouldn't
AUTHENTICATE, and wouldn't NETINFO, and then bridges would be
surprised to be receiving CREATE cells on a non-open circuit.
Fixes bug 9546.
Fortunately, later checks mean that uninitialized data can't get sent
to the network by this bug. Unfortunately, reading uninitialized heap
*can* (in some cases, with some allocators) cause a crash if you get
unlucky and go off the end of a page.
Found by asn. Bugfix on 0.2.4.1-alpha.
When we moved channel_matches_target_addr_for_extend() into a separate
function, its sense was inverted from what one might expect, and we
didn't have a ! in one place where we should have.
Found by skruffy.
Roger Dingledine
Andrea Shepard
Nick Mathewson
Karsten Loesing
George Kadianakis