* [Bitcoin-development] Useless Address attack?
@ 2015-03-05 1:40 Thy Shizzle
2015-03-05 2:13 ` Kevin Greene
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thy Shizzle @ 2015-03-05 1:40 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net" ;
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 791 bytes --]
Hi, so just a thought as my node relays addresses etc. If I wanted to really slow down communication over the P2P network, what's stopping me from popping up a heap of dummy nodes that do nothing more than exchange version and relay addresses, except I send addr messages with all 1000 addresses pointing to my useless nodes that never send invs or respond to getdata etc so clients connect to my dumb nodes instead of legit ones. I'm thinking that if I fill up their address pool with enough addresses to dumb nodes and keep them really fresh time wise, it could have a bit of an impact especially if all 8 outbound connections are used up by my dumb nodes right?
I don't want to do this obviously, I'm just thinking about it as I'm building my node, what is there to stop this happening?
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 1067 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Useless Address attack?
2015-03-05 1:40 [Bitcoin-development] Useless Address attack? Thy Shizzle
@ 2015-03-05 2:13 ` Kevin Greene
2015-03-05 2:16 ` Kevin Greene
0 siblings, 1 reply; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Greene @ 2015-03-05 2:13 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thy Shizzle; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3762 bytes --]
Bitcoind protects against this by storing the addresses it has learned
about in buckets. The bucket an address is stored in is chosen based on the
IP of the peer that advertised the addr message, and the address in the
addr message itself. The idea is that the bucketing is done in a randomized
way so that no attacker should be able to fill your database with his or
her own nodes.
From addrman.h
<https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/addrman.h>:
/** Stochastic address manager
*
* Design goals:
* * Keep the address tables in-memory, and asynchronously dump the entire
to able in peers.dat.
* * Make sure no (localized) attacker can fill the entire table with his
nodes/addresses.
*
* To that end:
* * Addresses are organized into buckets.
* * Address that have not yet been tried go into 256 "new" buckets.
* * Based on the address range (/16 for IPv4) of source of the
information, 32 buckets are selected at random
* * The actual bucket is chosen from one of these, based on the range
the address itself is located.
* * One single address can occur in up to 4 different buckets, to
increase selection chances for addresses that
* are seen frequently. The chance for increasing this multiplicity
decreases exponentially.
* * When adding a new address to a full bucket, a randomly chosen
entry (with a bias favoring less recently seen
* ones) is removed from it first.
* * Addresses of nodes that are known to be accessible go into 64
"tried" buckets.
* * Each address range selects at random 4 of these buckets.
* * The actual bucket is chosen from one of these, based on the full
address.
* * When adding a new good address to a full bucket, a randomly
chosen entry (with a bias favoring less recently
* tried ones) is evicted from it, back to the "new" buckets.
* * Bucket selection is based on cryptographic hashing, using a
randomly-generated 256-bit key, which should not
* be observable by adversaries.
* * Several indexes are kept for high performance. Defining
DEBUG_ADDRMAN will introduce frequent (and expensive)
* consistency checks for the entire data structure.
*/
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Thy Shizzle <thashiznets@yahoo•com.au>
wrote:
> Hi, so just a thought as my node relays addresses etc. If I wanted to
> really slow down communication over the P2P network, what's stopping me
> from popping up a heap of dummy nodes that do nothing more than exchange
> version and relay addresses, except I send addr messages with all 1000
> addresses pointing to my useless nodes that never send invs or respond to
> getdata etc so clients connect to my dumb nodes instead of legit ones. I'm
> thinking that if I fill up their address pool with enough addresses to dumb
> nodes and keep them really fresh time wise, it could have a bit of an
> impact especially if all 8 outbound connections are used up by my dumb
> nodes right?
>
> I don't want to do this obviously, I'm just thinking about it as I'm
> building my node, what is there to stop this happening?
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
> sponsored
> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for
> all
> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs
> to
> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 5769 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Useless Address attack?
2015-03-05 2:13 ` Kevin Greene
@ 2015-03-05 2:16 ` Kevin Greene
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Kevin Greene @ 2015-03-05 2:16 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: Thy Shizzle; +Cc: Bitcoin Dev
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4210 bytes --]
Also (I am fuzzy on the details for this), Bitcoind will detect when a node
is misbehaving and (I believe) it will blacklist misbehaving nodes for a
period of time so it doesn't continually keep trying to connect to tarpit
nodes, for example.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail•com> wrote:
> Bitcoind protects against this by storing the addresses it has learned
> about in buckets. The bucket an address is stored in is chosen based on the
> IP of the peer that advertised the addr message, and the address in the
> addr message itself. The idea is that the bucketing is done in a randomized
> way so that no attacker should be able to fill your database with his or
> her own nodes.
>
> From addrman.h
> <https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/master/src/addrman.h>:
>
> /** Stochastic address manager
> *
> * Design goals:
> * * Keep the address tables in-memory, and asynchronously dump the
> entire to able in peers.dat.
> * * Make sure no (localized) attacker can fill the entire table with his
> nodes/addresses.
> *
> * To that end:
> * * Addresses are organized into buckets.
> * * Address that have not yet been tried go into 256 "new" buckets.
> * * Based on the address range (/16 for IPv4) of source of the
> information, 32 buckets are selected at random
> * * The actual bucket is chosen from one of these, based on the
> range the address itself is located.
> * * One single address can occur in up to 4 different buckets, to
> increase selection chances for addresses that
> * are seen frequently. The chance for increasing this multiplicity
> decreases exponentially.
> * * When adding a new address to a full bucket, a randomly chosen
> entry (with a bias favoring less recently seen
> * ones) is removed from it first.
> * * Addresses of nodes that are known to be accessible go into 64
> "tried" buckets.
> * * Each address range selects at random 4 of these buckets.
> * * The actual bucket is chosen from one of these, based on the full
> address.
> * * When adding a new good address to a full bucket, a randomly
> chosen entry (with a bias favoring less recently
> * tried ones) is evicted from it, back to the "new" buckets.
> * * Bucket selection is based on cryptographic hashing, using a
> randomly-generated 256-bit key, which should not
> * be observable by adversaries.
> * * Several indexes are kept for high performance. Defining
> DEBUG_ADDRMAN will introduce frequent (and expensive)
> * consistency checks for the entire data structure.
> */
>
> On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Thy Shizzle <thashiznets@yahoo•com.au>
> wrote:
>
>> Hi, so just a thought as my node relays addresses etc. If I wanted to
>> really slow down communication over the P2P network, what's stopping me
>> from popping up a heap of dummy nodes that do nothing more than exchange
>> version and relay addresses, except I send addr messages with all 1000
>> addresses pointing to my useless nodes that never send invs or respond to
>> getdata etc so clients connect to my dumb nodes instead of legit ones. I'm
>> thinking that if I fill up their address pool with enough addresses to dumb
>> nodes and keep them really fresh time wise, it could have a bit of an
>> impact especially if all 8 outbound connections are used up by my dumb
>> nodes right?
>>
>> I don't want to do this obviously, I'm just thinking about it as I'm
>> building my node, what is there to stop this happening?
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website,
>> sponsored
>> by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub
>> for all
>> things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership
>> blogs to
>> news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
>> conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 6499 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
* Re: [Bitcoin-development] Useless Address attack?
@ 2015-03-05 3:18 Thy Shizzle
0 siblings, 0 replies; 4+ messages in thread
From: Thy Shizzle @ 2015-03-05 3:18 UTC (permalink / raw)
To: bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4132 bytes --]
Interesting!
Thanks Kevin, I now need to research this and include such protections in my node.
Also (I am fuzzy on the details for this), Bitcoind will detect when a node is misbehaving and (I believe) it will blacklist misbehaving nodes for a period of time so it doesn't continually keep trying to connect to tarpit nodes, for example.
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 6:13 PM, Kevin Greene <kgreenek@gmail•com> wrote:
Bitcoind protects against this by storing the addresses it has learned about in buckets. The bucket an address is stored in is chosen based on the IP of the peer that advertised the addr message, and the address in the addr message itself. The idea is that the bucketing is done in a randomized way so that no attacker should be able to fill your database with his or her own nodes.
From addrman.h:
/** Stochastic address manager * * Design goals: * * Keep the address tables in-memory, and asynchronously dump the entire to able in peers.dat. * * Make sure no (localized) attacker can fill the entire table with his nodes/addresses. * * To that end: * * Addresses are organized into buckets. * * Address that have not yet been tried go into 256 "new" buckets. * * Based on the address range (/16 for IPv4) of source of the information, 32 buckets are selected at random * * The actual bucket is chosen from one of these, based on the range the address itself is located. * * One single address can occur in up to 4 different buckets, to increase selection chances for addresses that * are seen frequently. The chance for increasing this multiplicity decreases exponentially. * * When adding a new address to a full bucket, a randomly chosen entry (with a bias favoring less recently seen * ones) is removed from it first. * * Addresses of nodes that are known to be accessible go into 64 "tried" buckets. * * Each address range selects at random 4 of these buckets. * * The actual bucket is chosen from one of these, based on the full address. * * When adding a new good address to a full bucket, a randomly chosen entry (with a bias favoring less recently * tried ones) is evicted from it, back to the "new" buckets. * * Bucket selection is based on cryptographic hashing, using a randomly-generated 256-bit key, which should not * be observable by adversaries. * * Several indexes are kept for high performance. Defining DEBUG_ADDRMAN will introduce frequent (and expensive) * consistency checks for the entire data structure. */
On Wed, Mar 4, 2015 at 5:40 PM, Thy Shizzle <thashiznets@yahoo•com.au> wrote:
Hi, so just a thought as my node relays addresses etc. If I wanted to really slow down communication over the P2P network, what's stopping me from popping up a heap of dummy nodes that do nothing more than exchange version and relay addresses, except I send addr messages with all 1000 addresses pointing to my useless nodes that never send invs or respond to getdata etc so clients connect to my dumb nodes instead of legit ones. I'm thinking that if I fill up their address pool with enough addresses to dumb nodes and keep them really fresh time wise, it could have a bit of an impact especially if all 8 outbound connections are used up by my dumb nodes right?
I don't want to do this obviously, I'm just thinking about it as I'm building my node, what is there to stop this happening?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dive into the World of Parallel Programming The Go Parallel Website, sponsored
by Intel and developed in partnership with Slashdot Media, is your hub for all
things parallel software development, from weekly thought leadership blogs to
news, videos, case studies, tutorials and more. Take a look and join the
conversation now. http://goparallel.sourceforge.net/
_______________________________________________
Bitcoin-development mailing list
Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8334 bytes --]
^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 4+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2015-03-05 3:22 UTC | newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed)
-- links below jump to the message on this page --
2015-03-05 1:40 [Bitcoin-development] Useless Address attack? Thy Shizzle
2015-03-05 2:13 ` Kevin Greene
2015-03-05 2:16 ` Kevin Greene
2015-03-05 3:18 Thy Shizzle
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox