#2216 closed enhancement (wontfix)

add random UDP/TCP port option

Reported by: anonymous maybe Owned by: str4d
Priority: minor Milestone: undecided
Component: router/transport Version: 0.9.34
Keywords: Cc:
Parent Tickets:

Description

inside http://127.0.0.1:7657/confignet please add an option here:-

  • UDP Configuration

Random UDP port

  • Externally reachable TCP port

Random TCP port

also this can be achieved as well by adding it to laptop mode. which will be like this:-

Laptop mode - Change router identity and UDP/TCP port when IP changes for enhanced anonymity (Experimental)

instead of just UPD.

Subtickets

Change History (9)

comment:1 follow-up: Changed 12 months ago by slumlord

Adding an option for a random TCP/UDP port (when? a new port every time that I2P is started? every X minutes? randomly?) could cause issues where a user who has manually opened a port in their firewall/router for I2P, but I2P subsequently changes the port it is using without notification to the user and then leaves the user in a state of confusion as to why their router isn't working as well as it was before. They would eventually see the notification about being firewalled and take action at that point. If they have a working UPnP then it may not be an issue, I suppose. The port is already randomly selected when I2P first runs, I am unsure as to what benefit would arise from continually changing it. A user that has to manually open ports would have to do more work each time the port is changed.

What is the rationale for the change you are suggesting? Are there benefits to anonymity, if so please explain your reasoning. If this change is aimed towards making integration in some other software easier, then it would be helpful to state that as well. Making a ticket saying "Please do X" as though all were obvious isn't productive, in my humble opinion. Unless if you had a patch to the code already prepared, of course.

As far as laptop mode is concerned, the Externally reachable TCP port defaults to Use the same port configured for UDP so when the UDP port changes, the TCP port changes as well.

comment:2 in reply to: ↑ 1 Changed 12 months ago by anonymous maybe

Adding an option for a random TCP/UDP port (when? a new port every time that I2P is started? every X minutes? randomly?) could cause issues where a user who has manually opened a port in their firewall/router for I2P

every time his ip change. also its an option to be there but not saying to the default one for every i2p router.

They would eventually see the notification about being firewalled and take action at that point.

since i ever run I2P always showing to me network firewalled but it wasnt a problem.

What is the rationale for the change you are suggesting?

separate TCP from UDP port number will increase security by giving each type of connection different port number = harder to guess.

As far as laptop mode is concerned, the Externally reachable TCP port defaults to Use the same port configured for UDP so when the UDP port changes, the TCP port changes as well.

thats very nice but the problem with the same number. all what im asking if we make them changing with separate number.

comment:3 Changed 12 months ago by slumlord

This is still unclear, are you trying to say that the Laptop mode setting should be the default? If so, what is your rationale/explanation. A change like this isn't going to happen simply because 1 person made a trac ticket.

separate TCP from UDP port number will increase security by giving each type of connection different port number = harder to guess.

How does it increase security? You have not given us anything to support your claim.

How is having both TCP and UDP on the same port detrimental to security? You have not given us anything to support your claim.

comment:4 Changed 12 months ago by anonymous maybe

This is still unclear, are you trying to say that the Laptop mode setting should be the default?

NO, im saying to add this feature to laptop mode once the user choose it. not to run it by default.

How does it increase security? You have not given us anything to support your claim.
How is having both TCP and UDP on the same port detrimental to security? You have not given us anything to support your claim.

as much security the laptob mode can give u. (Change router identity and UDP port when IP changes for enhanced anonymity).

theoretically if an adversary tracking ur connection to i2p through xxx.xxx.x.xx IP and UDP Port XXXX which is by default as well the TCP port number. so by laptop mode it will change ur UDP port (PLUS ur TCP port if we gonna have this feature) making things harder to know which port on UDP and/or TCP if one is already detected. sometimes tampering and/or middle boxes can block or focus on one follow of connection lets say UDP and its blocking it, and then u gonna have the connection from TCP port but its very deterministic if they know ur UDP port. so they can close one port on TCP once they know ur UDP and vise versa.

comment:5 Changed 12 months ago by zzz

  • Component changed from unspecified to apps/console
  • Owner set to str4d

comment:6 Changed 11 months ago by zzz

  • Component changed from apps/console to router/transport

related: #2217

So, the clarification in comment 2 (which was not in the OP at all) is that laptop mode set separate random ports for TCP and UDP.

Either this is a good idea or it's not... I don't see any need for addtional options exposed to the user on /confignet, as requested in the OP (see also #2217 which is requesting a simplified /confignet, in opposition to this ticket)

As clarified in comment 4, the proposed threat is an MitM or network observer, who, having identified an i2p protocol on a single port, can then block both transports on that port. This actually is unrelated to laptop mode at all, but is a thesis for configuring separate ports for all users.

The proposed threat is apparently able to classify and block a single port, but is not able to do the same for a second port? Or a single port makes the attacker's job significantly easier? Or a single port gives the attacker the ability to classify the easiest protocol only? (least common denominator)

In comment 3 we ask for supporting information, and comment 4 does provide a little, but I'm far from convinced, and I'm inclined to close this wontfix, but if OP has any further support for this unique threat model, please elaborate.

comment:7 Changed 11 months ago by slumlord

zzz makes a good point. If an adversary can identify I2P traffic and subsequently block traffic on one port, wouldn't it be trivial for that adversay to identify & block traffic on another port as well?

comment:8 Changed 10 months ago by anonymous maybe

@zzz if you dont see it good point to have it since its on the good side if we are going to have it (whether its trivial or not) , then feel free to close it.

comment:9 Changed 10 months ago by zzz

  • Resolution set to wontfix
  • Status changed from new to closed
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.