Re: [Lightning-dev] Remotely control your lightning node from your favorite HSM
Hey Zman, I saw the announcement about the commando plugin, and it was actually one of the reasons I wanted to write up what I had in mind, because while commando also uses a lightning connection to send commands to a lightning node, it was missing what in my opinion is the most important part: having all of Bolt 8 handled by the HSM and validating commands using a trusted display. That is what really brings additional security without compromising UX, and enabling secure remote control from a mobile phone. Cheers, Bastien Le mer. 6 sept. 2023 à 00:59, ZmnSCPxj a écrit : > > Good morning t-bast, > > CLN already has something similar in standard CLN distrib: https://docs.corelightning.org/docs/commando > > However it is tied specifically to the CLN command set. > Nevertheless, it is largely the same idea, just CLN-specific. > > Regards, > ZmnSCPxj > > > Sent with Proton Mail secure email. > > --- Original Message --- > On Tuesday, September 5th, 2023 at 5:26 PM, Bastien TEINTURIER < bast...@acinq.fr> wrote: > > > > Good morning list, > > > > I have just opened a PR to the bLIPs repository [1] to document an idea > > that I started investigating a long time ago and had already discussed > > with a few people, but never found the time to write it up before. > > > > This is a very simple architecture to securely send administrative > > commands to your lightning node (such as opening a channel or paying > > an invoice) from an untrusted machine (laptop, mobile phone or even > > smart watch, let's be crazy), by using an HSM acting as a whitelisted > > lightning peer (by implementing Bolt 8 entirely inside the HSM). The > > interesting part is that it requires almost nothing new on the lightning > > node itself, since we simply use a standard lightning connection as our > > communication channel and custom lightning messages to send commands. > > > > This should be doable for example in a custom application running on a > > Ledger Nano S [2], which is what I had started investigating. > > > > The bLIP still needs some work on the actual commands (and potentially > > their encoding), but the interesting part is mostly the HSM app (the > > rest is probably bikeshedding). > > > > If someone wants to actually work on implementing this, I think it > > would be very useful! I'd gladly volunteer to specify this better and > > review the implementation. Maybe that kind of work could be done under > > an open-source grant for example. > > > > Cheers, > > Bastien > > > > [1] https://github.com/lightning/blips/pull/28 > > [2] https://developers.ledger.com/docs/embedded-app/framework/ ___ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
Re: [Lightning-dev] Remotely control your lightning node from your favorite HSM
Good morning t-bast, CLN already has something similar in standard CLN distrib: https://docs.corelightning.org/docs/commando However it is tied specifically to the CLN command set. Nevertheless, it is largely the same idea, just CLN-specific. Regards, ZmnSCPxj Sent with Proton Mail secure email. --- Original Message --- On Tuesday, September 5th, 2023 at 5:26 PM, Bastien TEINTURIER wrote: > Good morning list, > > I have just opened a PR to the bLIPs repository [1] to document an idea > that I started investigating a long time ago and had already discussed > with a few people, but never found the time to write it up before. > > This is a very simple architecture to securely send administrative > commands to your lightning node (such as opening a channel or paying > an invoice) from an untrusted machine (laptop, mobile phone or even > smart watch, let's be crazy), by using an HSM acting as a whitelisted > lightning peer (by implementing Bolt 8 entirely inside the HSM). The > interesting part is that it requires almost nothing new on the lightning > node itself, since we simply use a standard lightning connection as our > communication channel and custom lightning messages to send commands. > > This should be doable for example in a custom application running on a > Ledger Nano S [2], which is what I had started investigating. > > The bLIP still needs some work on the actual commands (and potentially > their encoding), but the interesting part is mostly the HSM app (the > rest is probably bikeshedding). > > If someone wants to actually work on implementing this, I think it > would be very useful! I'd gladly volunteer to specify this better and > review the implementation. Maybe that kind of work could be done under > an open-source grant for example. > > Cheers, > Bastien > > [1] https://github.com/lightning/blips/pull/28 > [2] https://developers.ledger.com/docs/embedded-app/framework/ ___ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
[Lightning-dev] Remotely control your lightning node from your favorite HSM
Good morning list, I have just opened a PR to the bLIPs repository [1] to document an idea that I started investigating a long time ago and had already discussed with a few people, but never found the time to write it up before. This is a very simple architecture to securely send administrative commands to your lightning node (such as opening a channel or paying an invoice) from an untrusted machine (laptop, mobile phone or even smart watch, let's be crazy), by using an HSM acting as a whitelisted lightning peer (by implementing Bolt 8 entirely inside the HSM). The interesting part is that it requires almost nothing new on the lightning node itself, since we simply use a standard lightning connection as our communication channel and custom lightning messages to send commands. This should be doable for example in a custom application running on a Ledger Nano S [2], which is what I had started investigating. The bLIP still needs some work on the actual commands (and potentially their encoding), but the interesting part is mostly the HSM app (the rest is probably bikeshedding). If someone wants to actually work on implementing this, I think it would be very useful! I'd gladly volunteer to specify this better and review the implementation. Maybe that kind of work could be done under an open-source grant for example. Cheers, Bastien [1] https://github.com/lightning/blips/pull/28 [2] https://developers.ledger.com/docs/embedded-app/framework/ ___ Lightning-dev mailing list Lightning-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
Re: [Lightning-dev] faster NIKE Sphinx or more secure KEM Sphinx
Hi Laolu, Finally someone who understands! I very much enjoyed reading your reply. > Re Kyber, what's the current state of production-ready implementations? > Language wise, the most popular LN implementations today are written in > either: C, Go, Rust, or Scala/Kotlin. I ask as most of the Bitcoin community > uses libsecp256k1 [2] for anything related to EC-crypto, it's pretty well > tested, and very well trusted. If this Sphinx modification is used with an ECDH and a PQ KEM then in that case I'm calling it PQ Sphinx or KEM Sphinx, if you don't mind. Similarly, there's a PQ Noise that uses KEMs as well. Cloudflare uses Kyber in production and they've written various blog posts about their PQ cryptographic protocols, like this one https://blog.cloudflare.com/securing-the-post-quantum-world/ which mentions their CIRCL golang library: https://github.com/cloudflare/circl which implements Kyber from NIST round 3 in pure golang: https://github.com/cloudflare/circl/blob/main/kem/kyber/kyber1024/kyber.go // Package kyber1024 implements the IND-CCA2 secure key encapsulation mechanism // Kyber1024.CCAKEM as submitted to round 3 of the NIST PQC competition and // described in // // https://pq-crystals.org/kyber/data/kyber-specification-round3.pdf Kyber is going to standardization so anyone using Kyber needs to keep on following up with Peter Schwabe (crypto jedi) because they may have received some feedback from NIST for some more minor tweaks. Peter suggested I implement KEM Sphinx when I was discussing with him how slow Sphinx was when using X25519 + CTIDH https://ctidh.isogeny.org/ Anyway, if we take Cloudflare's example, upgrading your stuff to use PQ cryptography gives you forever bragging rights on technical blog posts. I mean... "Securing the post-quantum world" sounds like "Securing the world" aka "saving the world". :-) funny. haha. > I think if we started to investigating switching to something PQ for the > mixnet NIKE, then we'd also want to examine updating BOLT-09 (spec for p2p > network link encryption in the network) which uses Noise_XK to use a PQ KEM > as well [4]. Yes, exactly! Once we change our protocols to use KEMs instead of NIKEs it's easy to also make them hybrid classical post quantum. Currently, Katzenpost is the only software project that uses PQ Noise. One of the paper authors, Yawning Angel, wrote a PQ Noise implementation called Nyquist, written in golang: https://gitlab.com/yawning/nyquist/-/tree/experimental/pqnoise?ref_type=heads For Katzenpost, we've forked Nyquist: https://github.com/katzenpost/nyquist in order to give the caller control over the construction and selection of KEMs for use with noise. For rust implementation, best we modify snow, I've opened a ticket for that but I'm not currently incentivized to work on it: https://github.com/mcginty/snow/issues/142 I suspect the security preserving KEM combiner is more important for Noise than it is for Sphinx since at least the 2nd hop and on, make use of a MAC which covers the next hop's KEM ciphertext (or NIKE public key). Noise, unlike TLS, has a separate hash object for ciphertext transcriptos and for public keys. So, Cloudflare uses an insecure KEM combiner with TLS but still achieves semantic security due to TLS using one hash object for public keys and ciphertext transcripts. And to wrap it all up with a nice post quantum bow, Katzenpost has a hybrid signature scheme which our decentralized PKI uses to sign the PKI document which has all the network connection information and public key materials. Currently we're using X25519 and Sphincs+; the signatures are around 49 kilobytes but we just don't care, it has no performance impact that is noticeable to users. Cheers, David On Mon, Sep 4, 2023 at 4:54 PM Olaoluwa Osuntokun wrote: > > Hi David, > > Happy to see that you're still working to push the state-of-the-art when it > comes to mixnets! > > > Sphinx is essentially twice as fast if we eliminate the "blinding trick" > > and only have one group operation per hop, the DH. In order to make that > > work you'd also have to store the group element for each hop within the > > Sphinx header's routing information section which is properly padded and > > encrypted for each hop. > > Ah interesting, so sounds like a classic time-space-tradeoff: we can > eliminate that extra DH operation just by including the self-contained > ("post" blinded) group element in the packet! An earlier version of the > onion packet format for LN put the group element directly into the packet, > but then we switched to Sphinx as it was more compact (and an existing > peer-reviewed scheme) > > FWIW, we do have a basic versioning scheme in the packet format > (unfortunately, the initial version doesn't include this data in the per-hop > HMAC, so we'd want to fix that in the next version). So if we chose to > adopt this CPU optimization, we can bump the version, then introduce a new > p2p feature bit so senders can know whether
Re: [Lightning-dev] faster NIKE Sphinx or more secure KEM Sphinx
Hi David, Happy to see that you're still working to push the state-of-the-art when it comes to mixnets! > Sphinx is essentially twice as fast if we eliminate the "blinding trick" > and only have one group operation per hop, the DH. In order to make that > work you'd also have to store the group element for each hop within the > Sphinx header's routing information section which is properly padded and > encrypted for each hop. Ah interesting, so sounds like a classic time-space-tradeoff: we can eliminate that extra DH operation just by including the self-contained ("post" blinded) group element in the packet! An earlier version of the onion packet format for LN put the group element directly into the packet, but then we switched to Sphinx as it was more compact (and an existing peer-reviewed scheme) FWIW, we do have a basic versioning scheme in the packet format (unfortunately, the initial version doesn't include this data in the per-hop HMAC, so we'd want to fix that in the next version). So if we chose to adopt this CPU optimization, we can bump the version, then introduce a new p2p feature bit so senders can know whether the receiver supports this new format or not. In the past we updated the per-hop payload from a fixed format, to a more flexible canonical protobuf style encoding (dubbed the "TLV" format), though we haven't yet updated any of the crypto bits. In terms of tangible benefit, for the most part, forwarding payments on the network is limited by I/O bandwidth, not CPU utilization. In order to properly forward packets in a robust manner, nodes need to write some book keeping information to disk for each batch before forwarding. So I'm not sure we'd see much tangible benefit for the payment packet forwarding case. On the other hand, right now our packets are ~1300 bytes, which supports ~27 hops if each hop only requires 37 or so bytes of forwarding information. 27 hops is really much much more than we need, so if we instead target 14 hops (or maybe less really), then we'd be able to adopt this trick without any tangible increase in the packet size for each payment. It's worth mentioning that some of the network has deployed a slightly repurposed Sphinx packet format for the purpose of payment related notifications or requests. This protocol extension is called "onion messaging" [1], and more closely resembles a traditional mixnet (can be used for general messaging), but still targets a low-latency use case (need to know if the payment can be attempted or not quickly). Unlike normal payment forwarding, onion messages don't require nodes to write to disk (as currently specified) as there's no sort of internal retransmission or reliability logic required (tho they should still hang onto the shared secrets to implement proper replay protection). That's all to say that perhaps this optimization would be more useful for onion messaging than normal payments. > Or you may choose to combine the KEM with a Post Quantum KEM such as the > crypto jedi's Kyber1024 or other PQ KEMs. Let me remind you that Kyber is > much faster than even X25519 (and I guess it must also be faster than > secp256k1). So combining your NIKE adapted KEM with a PQ KEM like Kyber > will probably be the same speed as your current NIKE Sphinx > implementation. Re Kyber, what's the current state of production-ready implementations? Language wise, the most popular LN implementations today are written in either: C, Go, Rust, or Scala/Kotlin. I ask as most of the Bitcoin community uses libsecp256k1 [2] for anything related to EC-crypto, it's pretty well tested, and very well trusted. I think if we started to investigating switching to something PQ for the mixnet NIKE, then we'd also want to examine updating BOLT-09 (spec for p2p network link encryption in the network) which uses Noise_XK to use a PQ KEM as well [4]. Worth mentioning that switching to Kyber derived schemes for key exchange and encapsulation would protect us at the network level from future post-quantum attackers, but Bitcoin itself as defined today would still be vulnerable (to various degrees) to a quantum adversary. Updating Bitcoin to be post-quantum secure is an active area of research [5][6]. [1]: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/759 [2]: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1 [3]: https://github.com/lightning/bolts/blob/master/08-transport.md [4]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/539 [5]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1804.08118 [6]: https://eprint.iacr.org/2022/1423 -- Laolu On Fri, Sep 1, 2023 at 12:16 AM David Stainton wrote: > Greetings, > > The Sphinx cryptographic packet format as it was originally published > in the 2009 paper > ( https://www.freehaven.net/anonbib/cache/DBLP:conf/sp/DanezisG09.pdf ) > has a very compact packet format but in exchange, performance is > sacrificed. > Certainly when mixminion was around in 2002 this was the right choice > because networks were > a lot slower back then. And it may have also been the right choice >