[Lightning-dev] Reason for having HMACs in Sphinx
r.pickhardt at googlemail.com
Thu Nov 29 16:32:18 UTC 2018
I am still not 100% through the SPHINX paper so it would be great if at
least another pair of eyes could lookt at this. However from the original
SPHINX paper I quote:
"Besides extracting the shared key, each mix has to be provided with
authentic and confidential routing information to direct the message to the
subsequent mix, or to its final destination. We achieve this by a simple
encrypt-then-MAC mechanism. A secure stream cipher or AES in counter mode
is used for encryption, and a secure MAC (with some strong but standard
properties) is used to ensure no part of the message header containing
routing information has been modified. Some padding has to be added at each
mix stage, in order to keep the length of the message invariant at each
At first I thought this would mean that the HMAC ensures that the previous
hop cannot change the routing information. which was the first answer that
I wanted to give. However I am confused now too. The HMAC commits to the
next onion. So if the entire onion was exchanged and a new HMAC was
provided (as you suggest) the processing hop would not know this. Such a
use case would obviously lead to a routing scenario which would not succeed
and would hardly be useful (unless the previous hop plans a reverse dos
attacks from error messages or some other sabotage attacks which are
references in the SPHINX paper but not discussed explicitly).
On a second thought I reviewed chapter 2.1 of the Sphinx paper in which the
thread model for attackers is described. As far as I understand that
section one attack vector for which the HMAC shall help are man in the
middle attacks. If HMACs are being used some bitflipping by man in the
middles would be detected. However I think if a man in the middle speaks
the BOLT protocol they could exchange the entire package and provide a new
HMAC as a previous hop could do. Also the Thread model does only speak
about security of the message not so much about the reliability of the
protocol. I believe it is quite clear that if a routing node wants to
manipulate the onion they can do so. In the same way how they can decide
not to forward the onion.
--> So the mix network itself can make sure that no wrong messages are
delivered it cannot make sure that messages (which are unseen and unknown
from where they came) are intercepted.
Besides the Bitflipping usecase that I mentioned I agree with your
criticism and also don't see the necessity of the HMAC anymore. The message
is encrypted anyway and if bits are flipped the decrypted version will just
be badly formated. If the header was manipulated the next hop would not be
able to decrypt.
Best regards Rene
Am Do., 29. Nov. 2018, 16:31 hat Corné Plooy via Lightning-dev <
lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org> geschrieben:
> Is there a reason why we have HMACs in Sphinx? What could go wrong if we
> A receiving node doesn't know anyway what the origin node is; I don't
> see any attack mode where an attacker wouldn't be able to generate a
> valid HMAC.
> A receiving node only knows which peer sent it a Sphinx packet;
> verification that this peer really sent this Sphinx packet is (I think)
> already done on a lower protocol layer.
> AFAICS, The only real use case of the HMAC value is the special case of
> a 0-valued HMAC, indicating the end of the route. But that's just silly:
> it's essentially a boolean, not any kind of cryptographic verification.
> Lightning-dev mailing list
> Lightning-dev at lists.linuxfoundation.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Lightning-dev