p2psp team mailing list archive

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

Hello Ilshat,

Please can you answer the following questions:

1) Why a different socket is needed for poisoned chunks?
2)Malicious peer relay chunks received from splitter. If the sppliter
does not send chunks to a malicious peer, What chunk is relayed?
3) crc32 is not suitable as cryptographic hash function. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptographic_hash_function.
4) I do not see the problem with 255. Trusted peer just send information
to the sppliter about the chunks received and who send them.

Best,

Leo


El lun, 01-06-2015 a las 00:51 +0500, Ilshat Shakirov escribió:
> Hello!,
> 
> 
> 
> Here is the post about results of the first week:
> http://shakirov-dev.blogspot.ru/2015/05/the-first-week.html
> 
> 
> 
> Im currently in progress in preparing the plan of testing, I will
> suggest the first version of it by the end of the second week.
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> 
> 
> 2015-05-25 16:40 GMT+05:00 Ilshat Shakirov <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>:
> 
>         Hello!,
>         
>         
>         
>         I have just implemented and tested malicous peer, which simply
>         sends zero chunk to the rest of team. Here it is.
>         
>         
>                 Yes, that's the first step, sending poisoned chunk to
>                 the rest. But malicious peer is supposed to be smart,
>                 trying to avoid policies or colluding with others...
>                 In any case, STrPe-DS is more interesting in a real
>                 scenario.
>                 
>         Ok, so I will try to implement STrPe as soon as possible, and
>         start to implement STrPe-DS  with smart malicious peer. I
>         think I should implement bad-mouth and selective attacks, is
>         it enough? 
>         
>         
>                 I use Linux.
>                 
>         The problem was solved on its own, so I can test everything in
>         local team. Thanks =)
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         
>         2015-05-25 16:28 GMT+05:00 L.G.Casado <leo@xxxxxx>:
>         
>                 Dear all,
>                 El lun, 25-05-2015 a las 14:13 +0500, Ilshat Shakirov
>                 escribió: 
>                 
>                 >         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. 
>                 > 
>                 > The first step is to implement STrPe. I think that
>                 > the malicious peer which will just send poisoned
>                 > chunk (000..00) is enough for evaluating STrPe. (am
>                 > I right?)
>                 
>                 Yes, that's the first step, sending poisoned chunk to
>                 the rest. But malicious peer is supposed to be smart,
>                 trying to avoid policies or colluding with others...
>                 In any case, STrPe-DS is more interesting in a real
>                 scenario.
>                 
>                 
>                 > 
>                 > 
>                 >         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's ok. I will prepare plan asap.
>                 
>                 Thanks. 
>                 
>                 >         It is rare the system go down for 5-10 sec.
>                 >         What is the environment you are checking
>                 >         it?   
>                 > 
>                 > MacOS (yosemite); I run splitter, monitor and peer.
>                 > When system is going to down, the vlc out the error
>                 > messages like *can't decode timestamp.
>                 > But it occurs from time to time, ie today morning
>                 > all was ok =) And I just check it again, all was
>                 > ok. 
>                 
>                 I use Linux.
>                 
>                 Best,
>                 
>                 Leo 
>                 
>         
>         
>         
> 
> 
>