mirror of
https://github.com/irungentoo/toxcore.git
synced 2024-03-22 13:30:51 +08:00
minor punctuation fixes
only minor punctuation fixes. not changed the wording, except for one 'logical typo'.
This commit is contained in:
parent
6c37f490e0
commit
1e17b468e6
|
@ -3,58 +3,58 @@ feature complete. Why doesn't Tox support TCP yet even if those parts are
|
|||
complete?
|
||||
|
||||
The answer is that a way to ensure a smooth switchover between the TCP and UDP
|
||||
needs to be added. If Tox first connects to the other user using TCP but then
|
||||
due to pure chance manages to connect using the faster direct UDP connection
|
||||
needs to be added. If Tox first connects to the other user using TCP but then,
|
||||
due to pure chance, manages to connect using the faster direct UDP connection,
|
||||
Tox must switch seamlessly from the TCP to the UDP connection without there
|
||||
being any data loss or the other user going offline and then back online. The
|
||||
transition must be seamless whatever both connected users are doing be it
|
||||
transition must be seamless whatever both connected users are doing - be it
|
||||
transferring files or simply chatting together.
|
||||
|
||||
Possible evil/bad or simply TCP relays going offline must not impact the
|
||||
connection between both clients.
|
||||
|
||||
Typically Tox will use more than one TCP relay to connect to other peers for
|
||||
maximum connection stability which means there must be a way for Tox to take
|
||||
advantage of multiple relays in a way that the user will never be aware if one
|
||||
Typically, Tox will use more than one TCP relay to connect to other peers for
|
||||
maximum connection stability, which means there must be a way for Tox to take
|
||||
advantage of multiple relays in a way that the user will never be aware of, if one
|
||||
of them goes offline/tries to slow down the connection/decides to corrupt
|
||||
packets/etc..
|
||||
packets/etc.
|
||||
|
||||
To accomplish this Tox needs something between the low level protocol (TCP) and
|
||||
high level Tox messaging protocol hence the name middle level.
|
||||
To accomplish this, Tox needs something between the low level protocol (TCP) and
|
||||
high level Tox messaging protocol; hence the name middle level.
|
||||
|
||||
The plan is to move some functionality from lossless_UDP to a higher level:
|
||||
more specifically the functionality for detecting which packets a peer is
|
||||
missing and the ability to request and send them again. lossless UDP uses plain
|
||||
text packets to request missing packets from the other peer while Tox is
|
||||
more specifically, the functionality for detecting which packets a peer is
|
||||
missing, and the ability to request and send them again. Lossless UDP uses plain
|
||||
text packets to request missing packets from the other peer, while Tox is
|
||||
currently designed to kill the connection if any packet tampering is detected.
|
||||
This works very well when connecting directly with someone because if the
|
||||
attacker can modify packets it means he can kill your connection anyways. With
|
||||
TCP relays however that is not the case as such the packets used to request
|
||||
attacker can modify packets, it means he can kill your connection anyway. With
|
||||
TCP relays, however, that is not the case. As such the packets used to request
|
||||
missing packets must be encrypted. If it is detected that a packet has been
|
||||
tampered, the connection must stay intact while the evil relay must be
|
||||
disconnected from and replaced with a good relay, the behavior must be the same
|
||||
as if the relay had just suddenly gone online. Of course something to protect
|
||||
disconnected from and replaced with a good relay; the behavior must be the same
|
||||
as if the relay had just suddenly gone offline. Of course, something to protect
|
||||
from evil "friends" framing relays must also be implemented.
|
||||
|
||||
Detailed implementation details:
|
||||
|
||||
cookie request packet:
|
||||
[uint8_t 24][Senders DHT Public key (32 bytes)][Random nonce (24
|
||||
bytes)][Encrypted message containing: [Senders real public key (32
|
||||
[uint8_t 24][Sender's DHT Public key (32 bytes)][Random nonce (24
|
||||
bytes)][Encrypted message containing: [Sender's real public key (32
|
||||
bytes)][padding (32 bytes)][uint64_t number (must be sent
|
||||
back untouched in cookie response)]]
|
||||
Encrypted message is encrypted with sender DHT private key, receivers DHT
|
||||
Encrypted message is encrypted with sender's DHT private key, receiver's DHT
|
||||
public key and the nonce.
|
||||
|
||||
cookie response packet:
|
||||
[uint8_t 25][Random nonce (24 bytes)][Encrypted message containing:
|
||||
[Cookie][uint64_t number (that was sent in the request)]]
|
||||
Encrypted message is encrypted with sender DHT private key, receivers DHT
|
||||
Encrypted message is encrypted with sender's DHT private key, receiver's DHT
|
||||
public key and the nonce.
|
||||
|
||||
The Cookie should be basically:
|
||||
[nonce][encrypted data:[uint64_t time][Senders real public key (32
|
||||
bytes)][Senders dht public key (32 bytes)]]
|
||||
[nonce][encrypted data:[uint64_t time][Sender's real public key (32
|
||||
bytes)][Sender's DHT public key (32 bytes)]]
|
||||
|
||||
Handshake packet:
|
||||
[uint8_t 26][Cookie][nonce][Encrypted message containing: [random 24 bytes base
|
||||
|
@ -66,25 +66,25 @@ The handshake packet is encrypted using the real private key of the sender, the
|
|||
real public key of the receiver and the nonce.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
Alice wants to connect to bob.
|
||||
Alice wants to connect to Bob:
|
||||
|
||||
Alice sends a cookie request packet to bob and gets a cookie response back.
|
||||
Alice sends a cookie request packet to Bob and gets a cookie response back.
|
||||
|
||||
Alice then generates a nonce and a temporary public/private keypair.
|
||||
|
||||
Alice then takes that nonce and just generated private key, the obtained
|
||||
cookie, creates a new cookie and puts them in a handshake packet which she
|
||||
sends to bob.
|
||||
cookie, creates a new cookie and puts them in a handshake packet, which she
|
||||
sends to Bob.
|
||||
|
||||
Bob gets the handshake packet, accepts the connection request, then generates a
|
||||
nonce and a temporary public/private keypair and sends a handshake packet back
|
||||
with this just generated information and with the cookie field being the Other
|
||||
Cookie contained in the received handshake.
|
||||
|
||||
Both then use these temporary keys to generate the session key with which every
|
||||
Both then use these temporary keys to generate the session key, with which every
|
||||
data packet sent and received will be encrypted and decrypted. The nonce sent
|
||||
in the handshake will be used to encrypt the first data packet sent, the nonce
|
||||
+ 1 the second, the nonce + 2 the third and so on.
|
||||
+ 1 for the second, the nonce + 2 for the third, and so on.
|
||||
|
||||
Data packets:
|
||||
|
||||
|
@ -109,12 +109,12 @@ data ids:
|
|||
packet request packet: [uint8_t (1)][uint8_t num][uint8_t num][uint8_t
|
||||
num]...[uint8_t num]
|
||||
|
||||
the list of nums are a list of packet numbers the other is requesting.
|
||||
to get the real packet numbers from this list take the recvbuffers buffer_start
|
||||
from the packet, subtract 1 to it and put it in packet_num then start from the
|
||||
beginning of the num list: if num is zero, add 255 to packet_num then do the
|
||||
next num. if num isn't zero, add its value to packet_num, note that the other
|
||||
has requested we send this packet again to them then continue to the next num in
|
||||
The list of nums are a list of packet numbers the other is requesting.
|
||||
In order to get the real packet numbers from this list, take the recvbuffers buffer_start
|
||||
from the packet, subtract 1 from it and put it in packet_num, then start from the
|
||||
beginning of the num list: if num is zero, add 255 to packet_num, then do the
|
||||
next num. If num isn't zero, add its value to packet_num, note that the other
|
||||
has requested we send this packet again to them, then continue to the next num in
|
||||
the list.
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
|
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user