IdentityManager - Identity factory with multiple devices and singleton controller support #17

pelle · 2017-04-17T05:42:19Z

Creating an identity is much cheaper than in IdentityFactory
~289,311 vs ~2,400,000 gas

Original idea inspired by @narush. It no longer creates a controller per identity but uses a shared controller implemented in the contract itself.

It also supports adding multiple devices per identity and simplfied recovery rules

pelle · 2017-04-22T01:33:04Z

I rebased it and changed a few things. I need to update the tests more and add tests for the different attack scenarios

oed · 2017-04-27T17:12:21Z

We would probably also want a factory function that creates a controller to an already existing proxy contract. That would make it much easier to switch from using an older controller.

pelle · 2017-05-18T21:49:32Z

Good idea @oed

naterush · 2017-05-18T22:47:09Z

With rateLimited, it limits an existing owner to adding a single owner within an hour. But then that owner can add another owner immediately. Essentially, owner1 could add owner2 who could add owner3... w/ no delay. I think this could be a way to avoid rateLimited and add unlimited owners with no time lock.

This could be fixed by added a line limiter[newOwner] = now; in the addOwner function.

pelle · 2017-05-19T05:12:28Z

@naterush @oed I should now handle both your concerns.

Working on reorganizing tests to be more thorough

oed · 2017-05-22T18:11:04Z

Just a small note: Can you change the pragma solidity to 0.4.8, without the ^?
See #19

…ownership Also don’t allow recoveryKey to overwrite existing owners

Fails due to various timestamp related issues

naterush · 2017-05-25T05:56:10Z

@pelle I wonder if there is a benefit to having a distinction between onlyOwner and onlyOlderOwner now that there is a rate limiter. While it allows for different time locks for 1) using proxy, and 2) adding/removing other owners, but I'm not sure this is a distinction worth making.

Something we've discussed is that added devices should be able to transact immediately for UX reasons -- which I think makes sense. Thus, it might make sense to remove onlyOlderOwner completely, and just have an onlyOwner modifier, and just use the rateLimiter to control access to addOwner, removerOwner, etc.

pelle · 2017-05-25T16:36:47Z

@naterush @christianlundkvist I do feel that it is a good idea to limit admin like funcitonality to older users. I also think there should be some sort of small limit for new owners as I think it's safer, but we can configure it to 0 in the constructor if we feel it's ok.

oed · 2017-07-17T07:47:41Z

@christianlundkvist yes, this PR is no longer needed.

pelle

I can't Request Changes since I'm the original author. @oed see my comments. Small check needed. Otherwise everything looks great.

pelle · 2017-07-20T16:51:02Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

@@ -83,6 +83,7 @@ contract IdentityManager {
  // Factory function
  // gas 289,311
  function CreateIdentity(address owner, address recoveryKey) {
+    if (recoveryKey == address(0)) throw;


I didn't know about this address(0). Nice.

pelle · 2017-07-20T16:54:15Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

+  }
+
+  // an owner can migrate away to a new IdentityManager
+  function initiateMigration(Proxy identity, address newIdManager) onlyOlderOwner(identity) {


@oed Based on the other changes checking for null recovery keys, we should do the same here. Basically if newIdManager is null it should fail.

pelle · 2017-07-20T16:55:58Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

+  // WARNING: before transfering to a new address, make sure this address is "ready to recieve" the proxy.
+  // Not doing so risks the proxy becoming stuck.
+  function finalizeMigration(Proxy identity) onlyOlderOwner(identity) {
+    if (migrationInitiated[identity] > 0 && migrationInitiated[identity] + adminTimeLock < now) {


Explanatory comment on my above comment. If migrationNewAddress[identity] == address(0) here we could loose an identity completely. But the right place to check for it is in initiateMigration

naterush · 2017-07-21T14:49:32Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

@@ -133,6 +133,7 @@ contract IdentityManager {

  // an owner can migrate away to a new IdentityManager
  function initiateMigration(Proxy identity, address newIdManager) onlyOlderOwner(identity) {
+    if (newIdManager == address(0)) throw;


@oed could use the validAddress modifier here also.

naterush · 2017-07-21T14:59:00Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

+
+  /// @dev Allows a recoveryKey to add a new owner with userTimeLock waiting time
+  function addOwnerFromRecovery(Proxy identity, address newOwner) onlyRecovery(identity) rateLimited(identity) {
+    if (owners[identity][newOwner] > 0) throw;


Could be if (isOwner(identity, newOwner)) throw;

good point!

naterush · 2017-07-21T15:01:22Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

+  /// @param recoveryKey Key of recovery network or address from seed to recovery proxy
+  /// Note: User must change owner of proxy to this contract after calling this
+  function registerIdentity(address owner, address recoveryKey) validAddress(recoveryKey) {
+    if (owners[msg.sender][owner] > 0 || recoveryKeys[msg.sender] > 0 ) throw; // Deny any funny business


First check here is not needed. As we enforce the recoveryKey invariant, this is not an issue.

naterush · 2017-07-21T15:04:18Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

+
+  /// @dev Allows an owner to remove another owner instantly
+  function removeOwner(Proxy identity, address owner) onlyOlderOwner(identity) rateLimited(identity) {
+    owners[identity][owner] = 0;


Maybe use delete keyword for clarity?

yes, thanks!

naterush · 2017-07-21T15:04:39Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

+  /// @dev Allows an owner to cancel the process of transfering proxy to new IdentityManager
+  function cancelMigration(Proxy identity) onlyOwner(identity) {
+    address canceledManager = migrationNewAddress[identity];
+    migrationInitiated[identity] = 0;


Maybe delete here also

pelle

Changes look great so far

pelle · 2017-07-21T18:46:14Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

-  // - userTimeLock - Time before new owner can control proxy
-  // - adminTimeLock - Time before new owner can add/remove owners
-  // - adminRate - Time period used for rate limiting a given key for admin functionality
+  modifier validAddress(address addr) { //protects against some weird attacks


coder5876

Looks good except for the possible nuisance attack and possible mitigation (didn't think of this one before).

coder5876 · 2017-07-22T02:20:58Z

contracts/IdentityManager.sol

+  /// @param owner Key who can use this contract to control proxy. Given full power
+  /// @param recoveryKey Key of recovery network or address from seed to recovery proxy
+  /// Gas cost of 289,311
+  function createIdentity(address owner, address recoveryKey) validAddress(recoveryKey) {


There seems to be a possible nuisance attack here: Let's say I create a new identity with a recoveryKey that's used by someone else. This will then be stored here and in the registry, and when Vishnu is indexing the search will pull up two identities with this recoveryKey.

One way to mitigate this is to add a mapping

mapping(address => address) public recoveryKeyToIdentity;

that maps a recoveryKey to an identity, and when creating a new identity we include a check that recoveryKeyToIdentity[recoveryKey] is zero. This will also allow us to resolve the proxy address given a recoveryKey without using Vishnu.

I don't think there is an issue about us not knowing where to look for the key. The mobile app needs to keep track of the IdentityManager address in order to be able to send transactions anyway.

@christianlundkvist what would be the motivation for searching based on recoveryKey? It seems unlikely to me that a recovery key would ever say wonder what it is the recovery for, given that the recovery key will likely be the owner of the identity themselves (with SSS).

Also, Vishnu could just index the first one. This does open the system up to very mild front running attacks, but it seems like it is a very mild issue.

I'm not sure it is worth the extra storage place. Not sure though. Let me know what you think.

@christianlundkvist If we decide to do this, should we do the same for owners as well? It seems like the same nuisance attack may be possible in this case (though the reasons for going to Vishnu is even more questionable)?

@naterush @christianlundkvist the real case that we're currently using vishnu for is I have a recovery seed and I want to look up my uPort address from which I can now get my Identity Manager as well. If a user knows his uport address this is not an issue.

The proposed solution to nuisance attack wouldn't do much good with multiple identity managers anyway.

Perhaps the real solution is to have the recoveryAddress itself record in the registry which address they are recovering for.

Perhaps the real solution is to have the recoveryAddress itself record in the registry which address they are recovering for.

@pelle Yeah this would definitely work, I like this solution.

coder5876 · 2017-07-22T03:31:34Z

@pelle see comments above

coder5876

If we mitigate the nuisance attack by having the recovery key update the registry we should be good to go.

naterush · 2017-07-25T05:21:24Z

I'm working on getting tests working, and I don't want to merge w/out doing so, but can we change the isOwner function? It's a one liner but could save us from some headaches later.

Essentially, as of now, it may return that someone is an owner when they are not. To fix this, we just have to change the function to say:

return (owners[identity][owner] > 0 && (owners[identity][owner] + userTimeLock) <= now );

This way it will match with the modifier isOwner.

After that, let's merge :) Note: edited after posting to change msg.sender -> owner.

naterush · 2017-07-25T06:18:22Z

I had to do some funky stuff updating truffle wallet provider, etc. Not exactly sure what the issue was, but I think this should be good to merge :).

localredhead · 2017-07-26T19:09:54Z

per @christianlundkvist it is deployed here https://rinkeby.etherscan.io/address/0x02147e6dc09eb90ed508d99274aaafa9c4ab0d72#readContract

coder5876 · 2017-07-27T04:43:50Z

Deployed on Rinkeby + Kovan. Updated compiler version for latest version of Truffle

pelle force-pushed the feature/identity-manager branch from c2c9cb9 to e9c749c Compare April 21, 2017 23:58

pelle force-pushed the feature/identity-manager branch from dbc7fb8 to 4f32a81 Compare May 19, 2017 05:07

pelle added 16 commits May 24, 2017 20:01

IdentitManager which creates identities and acts as a controller

5dfc653

Adding of multiple devices as well as a change by recoveryKey

32380cd

tests for removal of owners

f4ec8d6

tests for changeRecovery

048611e

only allow owners who have been around for more than a day to modify …

4a6da21

…ownership Also don’t allow recoveryKey to overwrite existing owners

Reorganizing stuff based on latest changes in repo

d289ce1

added a general purpose rate limiter

9d4fb31

add a rate limiter to IdentityManager

b5f1771

Also limit owners added by owners

09ab55c

Add registerIdentity function for registering an existing proxy

875ed99

beginning of reorganizing tests

ce9ae06

Fails due to various timestamp related issues

set explicit 0.4.8 pragma

03a40ff

Configurable time locks

03a546d

Pushing refactored tests. Still failing.

9f8767e

Fix time lock calculations and rate limiter

61097de

Add remaining tests

eca4abc

pelle force-pushed the feature/identity-manager branch from 153e5de to eca4abc Compare May 25, 2017 02:02

pelle requested review from oed, coder5876 and naterush May 25, 2017 02:04

pelle commented Jul 20, 2017

View reviewed changes

oed added 5 commits July 21, 2017 13:12

Zero address check on initiateMigration

91fb8bf

Updated contract docstrings

5dd749a

Moved address check to modifier

e8cc4e0

Owner added by owner can now transact directly after being added

44a7778

IdentityManager now has isOwner and isRecovery functions

d3dab73

naterush reviewed Jul 21, 2017

View reviewed changes

Some small fixes

200c794

pelle commented Jul 21, 2017

View reviewed changes

coder5876 reviewed Jul 22, 2017

View reviewed changes

coder5876 approved these changes Jul 25, 2017

View reviewed changes

minor change to isOwner

f762602

Deployed IdentityFactory on Kovan+Rinkeby

2f96523

coder5876 and others added 4 commits July 27, 2017 17:41

Updated truffle version

4bbf91e

update circle.yml in the right branch

0c5d59b

Update tests for updated truffle.

e528dd3

Merge branch 'develop' into feature/identity-manager

f5ff249

pelle merged commit c2cfd94 into develop Jul 28, 2017

pelle mentioned this pull request Aug 2, 2017

Feature/146382715 metatx controller #38

Closed

naterush deleted the feature/identity-manager branch November 15, 2017 22:14

IdentityManager - Identity factory with multiple devices and singleton controller support #17

IdentityManager - Identity factory with multiple devices and singleton controller support #17

Conversation

pelle commented Apr 17, 2017

pelle commented Apr 22, 2017

oed commented Apr 27, 2017

pelle commented May 18, 2017

naterush commented May 18, 2017

pelle commented May 19, 2017

oed commented May 22, 2017

naterush commented May 25, 2017 • edited Loading

pelle commented May 25, 2017

oed commented Jul 17, 2017

pelle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

pelle left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coder5876 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coder5876 Jul 24, 2017 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

coder5876 commented Jul 22, 2017

coder5876 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

naterush commented Jul 25, 2017 • edited Loading

naterush commented Jul 25, 2017

localredhead commented Jul 26, 2017

coder5876 commented Jul 27, 2017

naterush commented May 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading

coder5876 Jul 24, 2017 •

edited

Loading

naterush commented Jul 25, 2017 •

edited

Loading