p2psp team mailing list archive

["L.G.Casado" <leo@xxxxxx>]

Dear all, mostly Ilshat,

Following your proposal, please take into account the paper we sent to
you.
Malicious peers will be smart and they can perform different types of
attacks.

Keep in main that the goal  is to check the efficiency of  STrPe and
STrPe-DS against those type of attacks.
We have to agree about what experiments (number of malicious peers, type
of attacks, etc) are needed to check the results and your code.
It is rare the system go down for 5-10 sec. What is the environment you
are checking it?  

Best,

Leo

El lun, 25-05-2015 a las 10:00 +0500, Ilshat Shakirov escribió:
> Hello!,
> 
> 
>         Would you mind writting a brief description of what you've
>         done to the date so we can see in which direction to go from
>         here?
>         
> Ok, but I am really did nothing serious. I have just implemented the
> malicious peer (the same way as lossy peer, I have replaced
> team_socket in peer). Now I am testing it, but I have some issues with
> local team (the monitor peer plays stream normally for first 5-10
> secs, and then there are lost chunks and stream begins to freeze, and
> etc.; it's happening without malicious peer =)).
> 
> 
> I want to do things in the same order as it described in my proposal.
> Is it right? 
> 
> 
> You can see my progress in github; Im working with fork of p2psp; Im
> using git-flow, so I develop new feature in new branch and then merge
> master and new-feature-branch. Also I will report my progress in blog,
> I will try to do it every Sunday.
> 
> 
> 
> 2015-05-25 0:00 GMT+05:00 Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo
> <juanalvaro83@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>         Hi Ilshat,
>         
>         
>         
>         thanks to you for taking this project. As you know the GSoC
>         officially starts tomorrow (Monday). Would you mind writting a
>         brief description of what you've done to the date so we can
>         see in which direction to go from here?
>         
>         
>         
>         Thanks,
>         
>         
>         
>         Juan
>         
>         
>         
>         2015-05-24 1:12 GMT+02:00 Cristóbal Medina López
>         <cristobalmedinalopez@xxxxxxxxx>:
>         
>                 Hi Ilshat,
>                 
>                 
>                 
>                 El sáb., 23 may. 2015 a las 19:14, Ilshat Shakirov
>                 (<im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>) escribió:
>                 
>                         Hello!,
>                         
>                         
>                         
>                         Sorry for the delay in the response and many
>                         thanks for accepting my project =)
>                         
>                         
>                 
>                 
>                 No problem, in fact, the GSoC starts officially the
>                 next monday :-)
>                  
>                         
>                         
>                         Currently, I am experimenting with malicious
>                         peer (here is my variant of malicious peer:
>                         https://github.com/P2PSP/p2psp/compare/master...ishakirov:malicious_peer).
>                         
>                         
>                         Is it right way to implement malicious peer? I
>                         have changed the peer.py and peer_dbs.py files
>                         (added new constant, and added condition for
>                         the sending chunks to other peers). Also, I
>                         see the lossy socket implementation, may be I
>                         must do smth like this?
>                         
>                 
>                 
>                 The idea is to use import from other class and
>                 overwrite the method if necessary. You can see an
>                 example in the lossy_peer.py file. In fact, each set
>                 of rules use an import class from another one. You can
>                 take a look in the current sets of rules implemented
>                 in order to understand it.
>                 
>                  
>                         
>                         
>                         
>                         Also, I am experiencing some problems with
>                         public splitter (150.214.150.68). There is
>                         lost chunks and 4 banned peers. May be it is
>                         consequence of my experiments, 
>                 
>                 
>                 There is a monitor peer in the same host that the
>                 splitter. So the splitter should expel to the "banned
>                 peers" due to the claims of the monitor peer.
>                 
>                  
>                         but I dont know exactly, so I need some help.
>                         
>                 
>                 
>                 You can experiment running a team in localhost. 
>                 
>                 
>                 
>                         
>                         
>                         
>                         Thanks in advance!
>                         
>                 
>                 
>                 Regards!
>                  
>                         
>                         
>                         --
>                         Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~p2psp
>                         Post to     : p2psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>                         Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~p2psp
>                         More help   :
>                         https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 
>