Onioncat is an add-on for anonymization networks such as Tor and I2P. It adds real IP layer networking capability to hosts connected through Tor. Hence it is not enough to just refer to the security of Tor (or I2P). This article discusses security Considerations which are specific to Onioncat. Of course, since Onioncat relies on Tor, most security issues which are valid for the Tor network also apply to Onioncat as well but not completely, because it is a totally different use-case.
Onioncat was specifically designed to work with Tor’s hidden services version 2 and therein Onioncat perfectly integrates into. It will and it does work with different systems as well (e.g. Tor hidden services v3, or I2P) but there are some drawbacks. This will also be explained within this article.
Although it is assumed that the reader is familiar with Onioncat we still try to explain the essential part of Onioncat in brief.
Onioncat uses the hidden service feature of Tor to connect nodes to each other. Those connections are then used to create plain IPv6 connections between these hosts as if they where connected together on a simple Ethernet switch. That is what every VPN adapter does and so does Onioncat. The difference between Onioncat and other VPN adapters (such as OpenVPN) is that, firstly, Onioncat connects through Tor’s hidden services and not through the Internet or any other VPN service, and, secondly, the “VPN” is not privately administered. Everybody can freely join the network.
Onioncat is a virtual network switch with a built-in secure automatic address selection method.
From this we can derive 3 main topics in respect to security:
- The security of the network itself. This issue is not discussed within this article.
- Local network security, because Onioncat “simply” is a virtual network switch.
- The glue between Onioncat and the Tor network.
Local Network Security
As soon as you run Onioncat, you are connected to a network where you do not know who is on the other side and who will connect to your system. In respect to computer security there is no big difference compared to being connected to the Internet.
People who you do not know may access your system.
If you think you are safe because your system is “just” accessible through a hidden service where Onioncat is attached to, be advised that this is a very dangerous assumption! Hidden services may be enumerated by an attacker or one might run a malicious hidden service directory and grep for hidden service descriptors. Or more simple: Running a single Onioncat instance is pretty useless hence you most probably gave away your hidden service’s onion url (
777myonionurl777.onion) to somebody else, e.g. your best friend. Unless this best friend isn’t Ed Snowden you can expect that your onion-URL was immediately revealed to the public (because he sent it to his Office365 or Gmail account, stored it on his “secure” smartphone, Dropbox, or whatever). Although this is not a security risk for neither Tor nor Onioncat it lets attackers access your system.
Accessing the system more specifically means that one could try to connect to some well-known ports or even target a port scanner or a security scanner (e.g. Nessus) at your Onioncat IP. Please note that an attacker may try to reveal your anonymity!
Of course, the risk is much lower than in the Internet but there is still a chance. Thus, all rules of security that apply to public network interfaces also apply to your Onioncat-managed virtual tunnel interface. More specifically consider the following:
- Run a firewall!
- Don’t trust IPs from
fd87:d87e:eb43::/48more than others!
- Use encrypted services!
- Use authentication!
- Do not run public (Internet) services on the same host! This may immediately reveal your anonymity!1 You may also read the article Onioncat In A Highly Secure Environment. It is not new, but you get an idea.
Be as paranoid as you are in the Internet!
Please note that Onioncat is a layer-3 VPN, meaning it is able to forward any IPv6 and IPv4 packets (if enabled with option
-4) but not frames of lower layers, e.g. Ethernet frames. Although Onioncat can be configured to use a TAP device (instead of the TUN device), which is a virtual layer-2 device, it still does not forward (nor process received) Ethernet frames. The Ethernet protocol is handled fully locally between the local Onioncat and the kernel even if it looks like if remote hosts are able to do so (e.g. if you capture with Wireshark). Onioncat emulates this locally. This means that an attacker cannot send ARP requests or other Ethernet broadcasts or similar frames. He cannot use Ethernet-based attack methods but he can send any specifically crafted valid IP packet to you.
There may be an additional risk if your system is connected to the public IPv6 network. If you run any process that tries to connect to any Onioncat service within the network prefix
fd87:d87e:eb43::/48 but Onioncat is not running for whatever reason, your system will leak IPv6 packets with a destination IP address of the desired Onioncat destination. An eavesdropper could conclude at least that you are using Onioncat. This is because the packets are caught by the default IPv6 route. To prevent this it is suggested to have a firewall rule in place which drops theses packets.
The Glue Between Onioncat And Tor
IP hosts connected2 to each other need IP addresses to be able to communicate. Basically, any IP address is valid and it does not matter which one in particular is chosen as long as they are all within the same network prefix and are not duplicate. Although this applies to Onioncat’s network interface3 as well, the IP addresses are well chosen for security reasons.
Tor does only know about hosts names and in respect to hidden services these host names must end with
.onion. In contrast, IP packets are addressed by IP addresses and not onion URLs (obviously). To address a hidden service with an IP address some kind of reverse-lookup has to be done. And here comes Onioncat into play.
Onioncat has an IP-based interface to the kernel and an onion-URL-based TCP interface to Tor and it translates between them. If Onioncat receives an IP packet from the kernel, it extracts the destination IP address, converts it to an onion-URL and asks Tor to build a connection. Once the connection is established, Onioncat internally associates this connection with the IP address and starts sending and receiving IP packets with the desired destination address between the kernel and this connection, i.e. the hidden service on the other side.
Tor’s hidden services are designed to have a fully cryptographic integrity. That means that the client of a hidden service (the one who connects to it) can prove that the onion-URL and the connection is really associated with the correct hidden service. That means that an attacker cannot pretend to be a specific hidden service without being detected.4
Onioncat translates the IPv6 addresses to onion-URLs and vice versa in such a way that the cryptographic integrity is kept upright. Onion-URLs of hidden services version 2 are 80 bit long numbers which are presented using Base32-encoding. These 80 bits are directly concatenated to the IPv6 address with the once randomly chosen Onioncat prefix
| 777myonionurl777.onion | | fd87:d87e:eb43:fffe:cc39:a873:6915:ffff|
Because of this technique onion-URLs and Onioncat’s IPv6 addresses can be used interchangeably. They carry the same amount of information. This has two important consequences:
- The cryptographic integrity of hidden services is kept through Onioncat.
- The translation mechanism is self-contained. There is no need for an external lookup mechanism.
How Does The Hidden Service Identify The Client?
As previously discussed the client can cryptographically make sure to be connected to the right destination. That means that the Onioncat which sends the first packet (i.e. it is an outgoing connection) to a desired destination can be sure that it will be connected to the authentic destination Onioncat.
But how does the destination identify the client? I.e. how does the Onioncat with an incoming connection know who initiated the connection?
At first it does not know. It receives IP packets with a source and a destination IP address but these could be hand-crafted by an attacker. The destination address shall be it’s own IP address. This can easily be checked.
To verify the source uni-directional mode was implemented which is enabled by default since 2013. Onioncat takes the source IPv6 address converts it to an onion-URL and connects back trough Tor with an outgoing connection. All outgoing IP packets are then sent through this outgoing connection and not the incoming one.
An attacker can easily forge the source IP address but not the key and the hash of a hidden service. Thus, the attacker will get no answers back as long as Onioncat is running in uni-directional mode.
Uni-directional mode is disable with option
-U, i.e. it then operates in bi-directional mode. In this mode Onioncat directly replies on incoming connections and does not request a return-connection through Tor. The advantage of this method is that there is no additional time lost for the connection setup of Tor and that it is not necessary to configure a hidden service at the client side. In the latter case you could let Onioncat generate a random source IP with option
The following diagram shows three different modes of operation. It is assumed that Onioncat A initiates the connection to Onioncat B. The picture shows a) Onioncat B in unidirectional mode, b) Onioncat B in bi-directional mode, and c) Onioncat B in bi-directional mode and Onioncat A with random source IP. In the latter case Tor A does not have to have a hidden service configured. As a consequence in this setup, Onioncat A can never receive (incoming) connections.
Crafting V2 Hash Collisions
But what if somebody manages to generate a valid key which hashes to exactly the same onion-URL? This is what is called a collision. To create a collision with any random onion-URL the birthday paradox applies, thus you need to generate about 2^40 keys to find any of two pairs with the same hash. However, to find a collision for a specific onion URL (meaning targetting your unique service) your still need 2^79 keys for the same probability to find a collision.
But let’s assume Mallory really manages to generate a valid key with a colliding hash to your service? What will happen?
The onion-URL is the unique primary key within the hidden service directory, thus the hidden service descriptor will be overwritten by the last one. As a consquence all hidden service connections will go to Mallory’s hidden service, Mallory’s Onioncat, and Mallory’s honey host.
Now Mallory can capture all your incoming packets. But because you are paranoid and set up all services to use e.g. TLS (as explained above) you immediately identify that something is wrong before you sent any plain text password.
Of course, we could continue the “But what if…” discussion but this is out of the scope of this article. This chapter shall give you an idea about how to think. Secondly, since this type of attack will become feasibly in the future, the Tor project developed version 3 of hidden services.
Onioncat and HSv3
Development does never end. The Tor project implemented version 3 of hidden services. This shall improve the security of hidden services, in particular if we take modern attack techniques and increased computational power into account.
From a user perspective there is not much difference except that the onion-URLs got signifficantly longer. In particular, v3 onion URLs carry 260 bits of information. If you thouroughly read through this article it should now become obvious that this has a significant impact on Onioncat.
Although it is simple to truncate the 260 bits to 80 to fit into the same IPv6 addressing scheme, there is no easy way back to regenerate this lost information to make a long onion-URL from the IP address again. It requires some kind of lookup mechanism and this in turn has some implications:
- The database wherein the lookup is done or the lookup transaction itself may be tampered.
- The database has to be operated by somebody and may be unavailable.
- Onioncat does not work out-of-the-box in this elegant way as it does with HSv2.
One might immediately think on using DNS since this could be done with a simple reverse-lookup, DNS is not the solution. It is a well-known problem that DNS lookups may compromise your anonymity.
The current solution uses a local text file for translation (see Onioncat and HSv3). But again, it does not work out-of-the-box, you have to setup the hosts file on all Onioncats which shall connect to each other.
I think that a solution should be built into Onioncat, or Tor, or both. But unfortunately I don’t have any solution ready, just some ideas. You’re welcome to think about this!
Security is not something absolute. The level of security which should be chosen depends mainly on the use-case. If you use Onioncat as some kind of VPN (as I do) to be able to connect to all your services even if they are behind a firewall and/or an uplink with dynamic IP addresses, you may choose a lower level of security as if strong anonymity is a requirement because you are residing in some problematic regime.
There are some attacks against hidden services. Although hidden service enumeration seems impractical because of the huge address space of hidden services (even with v2) and the low speed of Tor5 there is still a chance of your onion-URL/IPv6 address being leaked.
Tor offers authentication for hidden services but this is not yet implemented into Onioncat. Or more specifically I did not pay any attention to it, yet. It probably should be on the task list. But keep in mind that Onioncat development is a one-man show. Don’t hesitate to join the project 😉
Naturally, best practice network security should be applied.
Because of the effort and the risk which comes with HSv3 in respect to Onioncat, I personally stick to HSv2 for now.
- If anonymity is a requirement. This may not always be the case. I use Onioncat on my server at home just to be able to connect to it from everywhere (see Evading Firewalls). ↵
- Independently of protocol version 4 or 6. ↵
- The tunnel interface. ↵
- HTTP connections without TLS (HTTPS) in the Internet can be forged. Meaning an attacker can pretend to be some web service although he isn’t. And it is difficult for the client to detect this forgery. ↵
- My personal observation is that the connection setup time is not below 0.5 seconds and the RTT on active connections is greater than 0.2 seconds. ↵