feat: validate peer address using proof-of-identity transaction hash

[anatollupacescu]

This PR implements protection against spoofed addresses.

It introduces a new command line argument that will provide a transaction hash.

If the hash is not provided it will be fetched from the state store.

The transaction hash value is added to the handshake, so that (during connection) the other party can check if this transaction is present on the blockchain and if the initiator of the transaction has the same identity as the one connecting.

If the overlays differ the connection will be reset.

This change is 

[Eknir]

Good start!

[tfalencar]

Not directly related to the code in this PR, but I just wanted to give a heads-up to swarm team, that (afaik) this topic has been research a bit by geth team, so if you haven't yet, it might be worth checking whats the best solution they arrived at, and compare with the one proposed here
Some links for reference: ethereum/devp2p#109
ethereum/devp2p#161
https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00490509/file/HotP2P10-KAD_DHT_attack_mitigation-cholez.pdf
http://www.ipdps.org/ipdps2010/ipdps2010-slides/HOTP2P/HotP2P_DHT_attack_mitigation_Cholez.pdf

[acud]

Reviewed 2 of 3 files at r1, 1 of 7 files at r2, 2 of 6 files at r3, 4 of 6 files at r4, 3 of 3 files at r5.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 11 unresolved discussions (waiting on @anatollupacescu, @Eknir, @ralph-pichler, and @zelig)

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/pb/handshake.proto, line 19 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, anatollupacescu (Anatolie Lupacescu) wrote…

I was looking into it but didn't find a solution.

This article says that's expected: https://www.aapelivuorinen.com/blog/2019/07/12/protobuf-arrays/

please use bytes. also, this is a breaking change to the handshake protocol. i think that we already incremented the version once the storage incentives went in (or the variable pricing), but i'm not entirely sure

---

pkg/settlement/swap/transaction/sender_matcher_test.go, line 25 at r5 (raw file):

		t.Fatal(err)
	}
	// WIP

?

---

pkg/settlement/swap/transaction/sender_matcher_test.go, line 28 at r5 (raw file):

}

// type mockSigner struct {

remove commented code

[zelig]

Reviewable status: 10 of 12 files reviewed, 12 unresolved discussions (waiting on @acud, @anatollupacescu, @Eknir, and @ralph-pichler)

---

pkg/settlement/swap/transaction/sender_matcher.go, line 22 at r6 (raw file):

	ErrTransactionNotFound = errors.New("transaction not found")
	ErrTransactionPending  = errors.New("transaction in pending status")
	ErrTransactionSender   = errors.New("transaction sender")

you mean: invalid transaction sender

[zelig]

Reviewable status: 10 of 12 files reviewed, 13 unresolved discussions (waiting on @acud, @anatollupacescu, @Eknir, and @ralph-pichler)

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/handshake.go, line 65 at r6 (raw file):

}

type SenderMatcher interface {

i dont feel this is a good name

[acud]

Not directly related to the code in this PR, but I just wanted to give a heads-up to swarm team, that (afaik) this topic has been research a bit by geth team, so if you haven't yet, it might be worth checking whats the best solution they arrived at, and compare with the one proposed here
Some links for reference: ethereum/devp2p#109
ethereum/devp2p#161
https://hal.inria.fr/inria-00490509/file/HotP2P10-KAD_DHT_attack_mitigation-cholez.pdf

Thanks for the resources @tfalencar ! I'll have a look into this. Maybe @Eknir @zelig @anatollupacescu should too

[anatollupacescu]

Reviewable status: 1 of 12 files reviewed, 13 unresolved discussions (waiting on @acud, @anatollupacescu, @Eknir, @ralph-pichler, and @zelig)

---

cmd/bee/cmd/cmd.go, line 234 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, acud (acud) wrote…

proof-of-identity transaction hash?

fixed

---

pkg/node/node.go, line 279 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ralph-pichler (Ralph Pichler) wrote…

there should be a better error here. if nothing was specified and there was no deployment tx either bee will terminate with a storage.NotFound which does not tell the user much.

Done.

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/handshake.go, line 65 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, zelig (Viktor Trón) wrote…

i dont feel this is a good name

It could be TransactionSenderMatcher or OverlayMatcher
@ralph-pichler any suggestions?

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/pb/handshake.proto, line 19 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, acud (acud) wrote…

please use bytes. also, this is a breaking change to the handshake protocol. i think that we already incremented the version once the storage incentives went in (or the variable pricing), but i'm not entirely sure

updated to use bytes

last time the version was updated was:

metacertain, 2 months ago   (March 24th, 2021 8:03pm) 

Pricing update strategy (#1134)

---

pkg/settlement/swap/transaction/sender_matcher.go, line 22 at r6 (raw file):

Previously, zelig (Viktor Trón) wrote…

you mean: invalid transaction sender

fixed

---

pkg/settlement/swap/transaction/sender_matcher_test.go, line 25 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, acud (acud) wrote…

?

Done.

---

pkg/settlement/swap/transaction/sender_matcher_test.go, line 28 at r5 (raw file):

Previously, acud (acud) wrote…

remove commented code

Done.

[anatollupacescu]

Reviewable status: 1 of 12 files reviewed, 13 unresolved discussions (waiting on @acud, @Eknir, @ralph-pichler, and @zelig)

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/handshake.go, line 72 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, Eknir (Eknir) wrote…

Perhaps it is time to reconsider this name, given that we use it now for settlements, postage stamps and (upcoming) spoofless overlay protection. @ralph-pichler , wdyt?
It's not related to this PR though

Done.

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/handshake.go, line 283 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, ralph-pichler (Ralph Pichler) wrote…

why not use the existing ctx here?

Done.

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/handshake.go, line 290 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, anatollupacescu (Anatolie Lupacescu) wrote…

good point, I'll update it

Done.

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/handshake.go, line 75 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ralph-pichler (Ralph Pichler) wrote…

let's call this chainBackend here.

Done.

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/handshake.go, line 294 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ralph-pichler (Ralph Pichler) wrote…

also check that txReceipt is not nil

Done.

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/handshake.go, line 296 at r3 (raw file):

Previously, ralph-pichler (Ralph Pichler) wrote…

wrong address used

Done.

[acud]

Reviewed 2 of 2 files at r6, 11 of 11 files at r7.
Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 11 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Eknir, @ralph-pichler, and @zelig)

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/pb/handshake.proto, line 19 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, anatollupacescu (Anatolie Lupacescu) wrote…

updated to use bytes

last time the version was updated was:

metacertain, 2 months ago   (March 24th, 2021 8:03pm) 

Pricing update strategy (#1134)

cool that's fine then, since this wasn't released yet

[anatollupacescu]

Reviewable status: all files reviewed, 11 unresolved discussions (waiting on @Eknir, @ralph-pichler, and @zelig)

---

pkg/p2p/libp2p/internal/handshake/pb/handshake.proto, line 19 at r1 (raw file):

Previously, acud (acud) wrote…

cool that's fine then, since this wasn't released yet

Done.