Warren Togami Jr. [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2013-08-16 📝 Original message:bitcoinj-0.10 release ...
📅 Original date posted:2013-08-16
📝 Original message:bitcoinj-0.10 release notes:
- We now require Bloom-capable (0.8+) peers by default and will
disconnect from older nodes. This avoids accidental bandwidth saturation on
mobile devices.
Given the user-security concern that Peter brings up, reconsideration of
this new default behavior in SPV clients may be warranted.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:01:16AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
> > Doing this also makes it more difficult to sybil the network - for
> > instance right now you can create "SPV honeypots" that allow incoming
> > connections only from SPV nodes, thus attracting a disproportionate % of
> > the total SPV population given a relatively small number of nodes. You
> > can then use that to harm SPV nodes by, for instance, making a % of
> > transactions be dropped deterministicly, either by the bloom matching
> > code, or when sent. Users unlucky enough to be surrounded by sybil nodes
> > will have their transactions mysteriously fail to arrive in their
> > wallets, or have their transactions mysteriously never confirm. Given
> > how few full nodes there are, it probably won't take very many honeypots
> > to pull off this attack, especially if you combine it with a
> > simultaneous max connections or bloom io attack to degrade the capacity
> > of honest nodes.
>
> Oh, here's an even better way to do the "tx drop" attack: when you drop
> a transaction, make a fake one that pays the same scriptPubKeys with the
> same amount, and send it to the SPV peer instead. They'll see the
> transaction go through and show up in their wallet, but it'll look like
> it got stuck and never confirmed. They'll soon wind up with a wallet
> full of useless transactions, effectively locking them out of their
> money.
>
> Here's another question for you Mike: So does bitcoinj have any
> protections against peers flooding you with useless garbage? It'd be
> easy to rack up a user's data bill for instance by just creating junk
> unconfirmed transactions matching the bloom filter.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000018dcf5bcc3f018a05517ba1c479b432ba422015d4506496e55
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130816/6948a457/attachment.html>;
📝 Original message:bitcoinj-0.10 release notes:
- We now require Bloom-capable (0.8+) peers by default and will
disconnect from older nodes. This avoids accidental bandwidth saturation on
mobile devices.
Given the user-security concern that Peter brings up, reconsideration of
this new default behavior in SPV clients may be warranted.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 4:15 AM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 10:01:16AM -0400, Peter Todd wrote:
> > Doing this also makes it more difficult to sybil the network - for
> > instance right now you can create "SPV honeypots" that allow incoming
> > connections only from SPV nodes, thus attracting a disproportionate % of
> > the total SPV population given a relatively small number of nodes. You
> > can then use that to harm SPV nodes by, for instance, making a % of
> > transactions be dropped deterministicly, either by the bloom matching
> > code, or when sent. Users unlucky enough to be surrounded by sybil nodes
> > will have their transactions mysteriously fail to arrive in their
> > wallets, or have their transactions mysteriously never confirm. Given
> > how few full nodes there are, it probably won't take very many honeypots
> > to pull off this attack, especially if you combine it with a
> > simultaneous max connections or bloom io attack to degrade the capacity
> > of honest nodes.
>
> Oh, here's an even better way to do the "tx drop" attack: when you drop
> a transaction, make a fake one that pays the same scriptPubKeys with the
> same amount, and send it to the SPV peer instead. They'll see the
> transaction go through and show up in their wallet, but it'll look like
> it got stuck and never confirmed. They'll soon wind up with a wallet
> full of useless transactions, effectively locking them out of their
> money.
>
> Here's another question for you Mike: So does bitcoinj have any
> protections against peers flooding you with useless garbage? It'd be
> easy to rack up a user's data bill for instance by just creating junk
> unconfirmed transactions matching the bloom filter.
>
> --
> 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
> 0000000000000018dcf5bcc3f018a05517ba1c479b432ba422015d4506496e55
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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 at lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20130816/6948a457/attachment.html>;