On May 12, 2009, at 11:45 AM, Florent Daigniere wrote:

> Robert Hailey wrote:
>>
>> On May 12, 2009, at 6:47 AM, Matthew Toseland wrote:
>>
>>> ...
>>> So the question is, how practical is it for a mobile attacker to
>>> identify a
>>> block in its neighbours' stores (from the bloom filter), get
>>> connected to the
>>> neighbour's neighbours, download their bloom filters, and trace an
>>> insert or
>>> request back to source one hop at a time?
>>
>> At first thought, I would imagine if bloom filter sharing increases
>> the fetch effectiveness by x20, so to it would make such an attack 20
>> times easier. A powerful attacker might track ~everyone's~ bloom
>> filter!!!!
>>
>> What would the security implications be if we were to have the node
>> with the store check the bloom filter rather than sharing it (~one- 
>> hop-
>> probe~)? Would that buy us anything, being able to mete out bloom
>> filter checks? Then such an attacker could not check to see if we
>> contained ~80% of a split file because he would have to ask us to
>> check our bloom filter for so many keys. It would also be an order of
>> magnitude easier to implement than "sharing".
>>
>
> Huh.
>
> What are you suggesting here? That we re-invent the current protocol?

Sort of... but a request which does not route; one which only checks  
the datastore for the presence of a key. I believe that this idea was  
rejected earlier since the request "does not propagate the requested  
data," but appears to be much better security-wise than bloom filter  
sharing. And we could convert a fraction of these probes into full  
requests if we wanted to.

> The whole point of sharing bloom filters is to get rid of the
> network/node latency. We already have local bloom filters to avoid
> unnecessary datastore lookups.
>
> NextGen$

If the bloom filters are recovering already-failed requests, then  
surely latency is not the issue being addressed.

I thought that the point of having bloom filters was to increase the  
effectiveness of fetches (a more reliable fallback).

--
Robert Hailey

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to