On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 09:40:43PM +0100, Toad wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 18, 2003 at 01:15:24PM -0700, pineapple wrote:
> > I have a some questions.  Is this problem exploitable?
> >  Is someone exploiting it to DOS nodes?  Could you add
> > the IP address for these negotiation threads into the
> > thread dump?  Do you have any suggestions on what I
> > can do about this until NIO?  Right now my node is
> > completely useless as it's sending almost nothing out.
> 
> We can get NGRouting working. 

There should be a separation here. NGRouting should solve the network
overload problems, or greatly reduce them. The following discussion
relates to exploitability of the negotiation/session protocol.

> Exploitable? Probably, although it'd be
> relatively difficult - open 100 connections to a node simultaneously, as
> slowly as possible without them actually disconnecting. Thus you can DoS
> the node, using very little bandwidth. The problem is, even if
> negotiations are non-blocking, we may want to impose a limit on them,
> because of the considerable CPU they use, and the nonzero memory they
> use; furthermore, even if negotiations are non-blocking, you still have
> the connection limit, which you can also DoS. We could limit the number
> of connections or negotiations per IP address, but then the attacker
> will simply obtain more IP addresses. Nasty. *IF* negotiations are so 
> fast that you can't use the PK crypto involved to DoS the node on CPU,
> (this is all assuming you are using a lot less bandwidth than would be
> needed for a bandwidth-based DoS i.e. a lot less than the node's
> incoming limit), some sort of message based protocol might avoid such
> attacks... maybe. Oh and hash cash would be another possibility.
> Sessionv2 will drastically reduce the CPU cost of session restarts, but
> will leave the full negotiation protocol untouched. This is another
> reason why we will be leaving most of the hostile environment stuff for
> Freenet 2.0, if it's even possible then.
> > 
> > ----- Original Message ----- 
> > From: "Toad" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > Sent: Monday, August 18, 2003 8:59 AM
> > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] too many threads
> > 
> > The summary box just above that is useful too. Please
> > include it in
> > future dumps. As to the actual content... you have
> > most threeads in
> > PublicNIOInterface i.e. negotiating inbound
> > connections. This is not
> > uncommon. It will continue until we make negotiations
> > non-blocking, or
> > the load balancing problem is rectified. We have wide
> > reports of it. We
> > are going to try to see if NGRouting sorts out the
> > load balancing
> > problem and thus such issues; we will implement
> > non-blocking
> > negotiations AFTER NGRouting.
> > 
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software
> > http://sitebuilder.yahoo.com
> > _______________________________________________
> > devl mailing list
> > [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> > http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> 
> -- 
> Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
> ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.



-- 
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.

Attachment: pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply via email to