From: "Warren Togami Jr." <wtogami@gmail•com>
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Gavin's post-0.9 TODO list...
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2013 03:53:28 -1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAEz79Ppx-qt630+jurFBkJ6NwsEAb8gZgziL_zJK0v39jcnbZg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP2cdQ4vyO5N42FO=Y6c_bt6yTes9p5UTs+cD66YiNC08Q@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 5401 bytes --]
Automatic heuristic driven prioritization, with sane defaults and some
configurable knobs, is exactly what I suggest.
In the short-term though, any connection limits added to the client by
default would be the simplest and easiest protection measure to audit. It
would improve things a lot over the current situation where there are no
limits, and it requires no manual intervention from node operators.
Warren
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:46 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
> A ban-subnet RPC would be a reasonable addition, but obviously DoS
> attackers that are IP or bandwidth constrained are really just script
> kiddies. Also anything that involves every node operator doing manual
> intervention rather works against decentralisation and having a big
> network. That's why I keep pushing for automated heuristic driven
> prioritisation.
>
>
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:41 PM, Warren Togami Jr. <wtogami@gmail•com>wrote:
>
>>
>> https://togami.com/~warren/archive/2013/example-bitcoind-dos-mitigation-via-iptables.txt
>> *Anti-DoS Low Hanging Fruit: source IP or subnet connection limits*
>> If you disallow the same IP and/or subnet from establishing too many TCP
>> connections with your node, it becomes more expensive for attackers to use
>> a single host exhaust a target node's resources. This iptables firewall
>> based example has almost zero drawbacks, but it is too complicated for most
>> people to deploy. Yes, there is a small chance that you will block
>> legitimate connections, but there are plenty of other nodes for random
>> connections to choose from. Configurable per source IP and source subnet
>> limits with sane defaults enforced by bitcoind itself would be a big
>> improvement over the current situation where one host address can consume
>> limited resources of many target nodes.
>>
>> This doesn't remove the risk of a network-wide connection exhaustion
>> attack by a determined attacker, but it at least makes multiple types of
>> attacks a lot more expensive. This also doesn't do much against the io
>> vulnerability, which would require major redesigns to prevent in Bitcoin.
>>
>>
>> https://github.com/litecoin-project/litecoin/commit/db4d8e21d99551bef4c807aa1534a074e4b7964d
>> *Want to safely delay the block size limit increase for another year or
>> two?* This patch alone enables that.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:24 AM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>>
>>> The only other thing I'd like to see there is the start of a new
>>> anti-DoS framework. I think once the outline is in place other people will
>>> be able to fill it in appropriately. But the current framework has to be
>>> left behind.
>>>
>>> If I had to choose one thing to evict to make time for that, it'd be the
>>> whitepapers. At the moment we still have plenty of headroom in block sizes,
>>> even post April. It can probably be safely delayed for a while.
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 2:11 PM, Mike Hearn <mike@plan99•net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cool. Maybe it's time for another development update on the foundation
>>>> blog?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 3:00 AM, Gavin Andresen <
>>>> gavinandresen@gmail•com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Mike asked what non-0.9 code I'm working on; the three things on the
>>>>> top of my list are:
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Smarter fee handling on the client side, instead of hard-coded
>>>>> fees. I was busy today generating scatter-plots and histograms of
>>>>> transaction fees versus priorities to get some insight into what miner
>>>>> policies look like right now.
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) "First double-spend" relaying and alerting, to better support
>>>>> low-value in-person transactions. Related:
>>>>> *Have *a *Snack*, Pay with *Bitcoins*<http://www.tik.ee.ethz.ch/file/848064fa2e80f88a57aef43d7d5956c6/P2P2013_093.pdf>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> 3) Work on 2-3 whitepapers on why we need to increase or remove the
>>>>> 1MB block size limit, how we can do it safely, and go through all of the
>>>>> arguments that have been made against it and explain why they're wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> --
>>>>> Gavin Andresen
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
>>> It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
>>> Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
>>> Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
>>>
>>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Get 100% visibility into Java/.NET code with AppDynamics Lite!
>> It's a free troubleshooting tool designed for production.
>> Get down to code-level detail for bottlenecks, with <2% overhead.
>> Download for free and get started troubleshooting in minutes.
>>
>> http://pubads.g.doubleclick.net/gampad/clk?id=48897031&iu=/4140/ostg.clktrk
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 8642 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2013-08-16 13:53 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 27+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2013-08-16 1:00 Gavin Andresen
2013-08-16 4:06 ` Melvin Carvalho
2013-08-16 12:11 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-16 12:24 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-16 13:41 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2013-08-16 13:46 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-16 13:53 ` Warren Togami Jr. [this message]
2013-08-16 14:06 ` Peter Todd
2013-08-16 14:56 ` Gregory Maxwell
2013-08-16 14:01 ` Peter Todd
2013-08-16 14:15 ` Peter Todd
2013-08-16 14:27 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2013-08-16 14:36 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-16 14:59 ` Peter Todd
2013-08-16 15:06 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2013-08-16 15:11 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-16 15:13 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-16 15:59 ` Peter Todd
2013-08-17 0:08 ` Warren Togami Jr.
2013-08-17 12:35 ` Mike Hearn
2013-08-17 13:41 ` Jeff Garzik
2013-08-19 3:09 ` John Dillon
2013-08-19 3:17 ` Peter Todd
2013-08-19 5:00 ` John Dillon
2013-08-19 5:34 ` John Dillon
2013-08-19 5:11 ` Mark Friedenbach
2013-08-19 9:16 ` Mike Hearn
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAEz79Ppx-qt630+jurFBkJ6NwsEAb8gZgziL_zJK0v39jcnbZg@mail.gmail.com \
--to=wtogami@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox