p2psp team mailing list archive
-
p2psp team
-
Mailing list archive
-
Message #00224
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
Dear Ilshat ,
Regarding the experiments at:
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1FP_3YHSZQQ5xa5abkpIToN2WAU4BPM1MPRfUOhzq9U0/edit#
As very preliminary experiment is fine, but they are so quite simple and
we have to stress the system.
as far as I understood, Monitor and Trusted peers are the different
names for the same type of peer.
We need to perform more realistic scenarios. For instance a group of
people sharing a video.
Let fix the number of well intended peers to 20.
1.1 and 1.2 seems to be solved.
1.3 also.
What about 1.2-1.3 together. As malicious peer, once discovered I guess
who is the Trusted peer I will sent good chunks in new off-on
connection.
So I can perform a selective attack.
Does malicious 1-2-1.3 peer persists? Give an advice of how to solve
this type of attack (The code for the solution for your advice is not
part of GSoC)
1.4 (Has no sense in STrPe) because Spliter only hear from Trusted peer.
1.5. DoS was not selected as one of the attacks in GSoC
1.6. Collaborative Attack: One of the malicious peers can inform the
others about a possible Trusted peer.
So, Just use a set of 20 well intended peers and add a different number
of malicious peers (1 to 40) and different type of (basic) attacks in
order to know how many malicious peers and of what type of attacks the
fix (20 well intended peers and one Trusted peer) system can support.
System performance can be measured, for instance, in how many good
chunks have a good peer received out of all.
In the STrPe-DS we will perform the same scenarios to se how the
efficiency in malicious detection and system performance improves.
Best regards,
Leo
El mar, 23-06-2015 a las 12:11 +0500, Ilshat Shakirov escribió:
> Hello,
>
>
>
> here is exact results for pycrypto:
>
>
>
> key.sign x10 times: 0.00385499000549s
> key.verify x10 times: 0.00309109687805s
>
> key.sign x100 times: 0.0352149009705s
> key.verify x100 times: 0.0317900180817s
>
> key.sign x1000 times: 0.332525968552s
> key.verify x1000 times: 0.326780080795s
>
>
>
> Also, I've updated post.
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> 2015-06-23 0:34 GMT+05:00 Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo
> <juanalvaro83@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Hi Ilshat,
>
>
>
> great job during last week.
>
>
>
> Regarding the signature benchmarks it is clear that DSA is the
> preferable option. However, the plot does not allow to
> appreciate the exact result in seconds for DSA. Can you just
> post the exact numbers? We need to check if DSA's is enough
> for signing and verifying a stream of chunks.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
>
>
> Juan
>
>
>
>
>
> 2015-06-22 20:58 GMT+02:00 Vicente Gonzalez
> <vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Have you check that the VLC is serving the video well?
> (Please, connect to http://localhost:8080 with Firefox
> or with VLC when you detect that the problem happens).
>
>
> On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 8:54 PM Ilshat Shakirov
> <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
>
>
> Not really, I just open many tabs in mac
> terminal (instead of using xterm);
>
>
> Order of commands is the same.
>
>
>
> 2015-06-23 0:50 GMT+06:00 Vicente Gonzalez
> <vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Hi Ilshat,
>
>
>
> are you using the commands I can see
> in your blog?
>
>
> Regards,
> Vi.
>
>
> On Sun, Jun 21, 2015 at 9:59 PM Ilshat
> Shakirov <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx>
> wrote:
>
> Hi all!
>
>
>
> Here is new blogpost:
> http://shakirov-dev.blogspot.ru/2015/06/the-third-week.html
>
>
>
> Also, I want you to test my
> code please. There is strange
> errors sometimes. After
> monitor is connected, it
> doesnt receive new chunks from
> splitter. And after the
> trusted peer is connected to
> team, monitor exclude it from
> team for 129 losses. It occurs
> sometimes, and I can't
> understand why it's happening.
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
> 2015-06-20 5:05 GMT+05:00 Juan
> Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo
> <juanalvaro83@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> FYI:
> https://torrentfreak.com/popular-torrents-being-sabotaged-by-ipv6-peer-flood-150619/
>
>
>
>
> Le 18 juin 2015
> 19:41:12 CEST, Ilshat
> Shakirov
> <im.shakirov@xxxxxxxxx> a écrit :
>
> Hi all!
>
>
>
> Sorry for the
> delay in the
> response.
>
>
> -On
> replacing CRC32 for SHA-256. ...
>
> Ok, thanks for
> the
> explanation.
>
>
> Overriding sendto() function ...
>
> Thanks =)
>
>
> -Packet verification frequency (the 255 problem).
>
> Ok, I will do
> it as you
> described.
>
>
> -Malicious peers sending packets even after expelled. ...
>
> I will return
> to this task
> after
> implementing
> the first
> steps in
> STrPe-DS.
>
>
> Regarding
> testing
> crypto-libs:
>
> I have
> performed that
> tests, here is
> results:
>
> MacBookPro-Ilya-Shakirov:crypto-test i.shakirov$ ./test-ecdsa.py
> key.sign x100 times: 2.76373291016s
> key.verify x100 times: 5.61430811882s
> MacBookPro-Ilya-Shakirov:crypto-test i.shakirov$ ./test-pycrypto.py
> key.sign x100 times: 0.0404751300812s
> key.verify x100 times: 0.038027048111s
>
> My laptop
> config is i7
> 2.9GHz; 8Gb
> RAM;
>
> Source of this
> synth-tests
> can be found
> here:
> https://github.com/ishakirov/p2psp/commit/d833589ffc5a9a923123c56a74bc0bba2a79c97a
>
>
> I think that
> pycrypto lib
> is suitable
> for our needs
> in speed. So
> Im planning to
> use it in
> STrPe-DS
> implementation.
>
>
> PS. Sorry for
> 3rd week
> blogpost, but
> I think there
> is too small
> results to
> write
> blogpost. But
> 4th week
> blogspot will
> be. =)
>
>
>
> Thanks!
>
>
>
>
> 2015-06-15
> 11:19 GMT
> +05:00 Vicente
> Gonzalez
> <vicente.gonzalez.ruiz@xxxxxxxxx>:
>
> Hi
> everybody!
>
>
>
> Just a
> little
> remark
> to
> this
> long
> but
> insightful message (thanks Juan Alvaro).
>
>
> First,
> yes,
> using
> DS
> should
> be the
> definitive solution, but, regarding this:
>
>
> On
> Sun,
> Jun
> 14,
> 2015
> at
> 9:04
> PM
> Juan
> Álvaro
> Muñoz
> Naranjo <juanalvaro83@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>
>
> all peers behind the same public IP (NAT scenario) will be banned if one of them is malicious
>
> It the
> EMS
> set of
> rules
> is
> implemented, more than one peer can be in the same private network and all are different for the splitter.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Vi.
> --
>
> --
>
> Vicente González Ruiz
> Depto
> de
> Informática
>
> Escuela Técnica Superior de Ingeniería
> Universidad de Almería
>
>
> Carretera Sacramento S/N
> 04120,
> La
> Cañada
> de San
> Urbano
> Almería, España
>
> e-mail: vruiz@xxxxxx
> http://www.ual.es/~vruiz
> tel:
> +34
> 950
> 015711
> fax:
> +34
> 950
> 015486
>
>
> --
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~p2psp
> Post
> to
> :
> p2psp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~p2psp
> More
> help
> :
> https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
References
-
CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-05-23
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Cristóbal Medina López, 2015-05-23
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo, 2015-05-24
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-05-25
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: L.G.Casado, 2015-05-25
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-05-25
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: L.G.Casado, 2015-05-25
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-05-25
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-05-31
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: L.G.Casado, 2015-06-01
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-06-01
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-06-08
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: L.G.Casado, 2015-06-09
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo, 2015-06-14
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Vicente Gonzalez, 2015-06-15
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-06-18
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo, 2015-06-20
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-06-21
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Vicente Gonzalez, 2015-06-22
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-06-22
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Vicente Gonzalez, 2015-06-22
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo, 2015-06-22
-
Re: CIS of rules (GSoC)
From: Ilshat Shakirov, 2015-06-23
