📅 Original date posted:2011-09-15
🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen proposes adding a -banscore option to ban nodes accumulating more than -banscore misbehavior points for -bantime seconds.
📝 Original message:A few thoughts:
Should the DoS protection auto-disable if the node has less than a
minimum number of connections? The idea being that if our node seems to
be kicking /everybody /off the roster maybe there is something wrong
with the protections.
It would be nice if the node sent a message to the banned peer with a
code indicating the reason for the ban, specifically the offense that
put Bitcoin over the edge. Logging the reason is probably fine for most
cases, but I wanted to put the idea out there, because it might make
debugging easier if there are some weird bans happening in the wild and
we can't figure out why.
Should sending lots of messages that don't pass the protocol-level
checksum test be a bannable offense? Or generally sending garbage data?
The attacks I'm thinking of are cross-protocol attacks. So as rough
example: The attacker puts an iframe on a website with a url like
http://victim.com:8333 so lots of people's browsers connect to it. Maybe
he could even use something like [magic-bytes]tx\0[...][valid orphan
transaction] in the URL, so the browser would send GET /[magic-bytes]
etc. and the Bitcoin node would interpret it.
kjj wrote:
> A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate. A whole bunch
> of them are probably not. I would think that assigning a point or two
> of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the
> understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.
Strongly disagree. What is a non-standard transaction today may /be /a
standard transaction tomorrow.
On 9/15/2011 2:25 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> Thanks Mike, that's exactly the kind of detailed review I was looking
> for. I think you're right an all points.
>
> I'll simplify: I'll add a -banscore option (default 100), and if a
> node accumulates more than -banscore misbehavior points it'll get
> dropped and banned for -bantime (default 60*60*24) seconds.
>
> I'll make bad signatures a banning offense, and I'll remove the
> number-of-sigops and non-standard-transaction penalties.
>
> I used a mutable field with const setter to avoid modifying a bunch of
> methods to take non-const blocks/transactions instead of const; I
> think it is appropriate because a block/transaction's DoS score is
> really meta-data and not part of it's state.
>
> I'll make GetTime() unit-test friendly as you suggest.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110915/d97d1e45/attachment.html>;
Stefan Thomas [ARCHIVE] /
npub1f8…ap20e
2023-06-07 02:26:46
in reply to nevent1q…lxdn
Author Public Key
npub1f8c8h5evqyy29yp6p7jelyzw6vfwp6jz05exn66l4ygwkj57ytzqmap20ePublished at
2023-06-07 02:26:46Event JSON
{
"id": "a0cbf5d1238ec8425066bc83cd48722cbce545062956212ab57c35638f8d93f6",
"pubkey": "49f07bd32c0108a2903a0fa59f904ed312e0ea427d3269eb5fa910eb4a9e22c4",
"created_at": 1686104806,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"e29ff4d93432370a19179a042d2501986d93a8b4cdbf351edfd1916f772bb3bb",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"f27df72305fc3492cb2d05017f20adc6aadcb69d904a82f6da44366c03fb2d71",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"857f2f78dc1639e711f5ea703a9fc978e22ebd279abdea1861b7daa833512ee4"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2011-09-15\n🗒️ Summary of this message: Gavin Andresen proposes adding a -banscore option to ban nodes accumulating more than -banscore misbehavior points for -bantime seconds.\n📝 Original message:A few thoughts:\n\nShould the DoS protection auto-disable if the node has less than a \nminimum number of connections? The idea being that if our node seems to \nbe kicking /everybody /off the roster maybe there is something wrong \nwith the protections.\n\nIt would be nice if the node sent a message to the banned peer with a \ncode indicating the reason for the ban, specifically the offense that \nput Bitcoin over the edge. Logging the reason is probably fine for most \ncases, but I wanted to put the idea out there, because it might make \ndebugging easier if there are some weird bans happening in the wild and \nwe can't figure out why.\n\nShould sending lots of messages that don't pass the protocol-level \nchecksum test be a bannable offense? Or generally sending garbage data? \nThe attacks I'm thinking of are cross-protocol attacks. So as rough \nexample: The attacker puts an iframe on a website with a url like \nhttp://victim.com:8333 so lots of people's browsers connect to it. Maybe \nhe could even use something like [magic-bytes]tx\\0[...][valid orphan \ntransaction] in the URL, so the browser would send GET /[magic-bytes] \netc. and the Bitcoin node would interpret it.\n\nkjj wrote:\n\n\u003e A few non-standard transactions are probably legitimate. A whole bunch\n\u003e of them are probably not. I would think that assigning a point or two\n\u003e of badness to a peer sending one is pretty reasonable, with the\n\u003e understanding that we would need to adjust that as the network evolves.\n\nStrongly disagree. What is a non-standard transaction today may /be /a \nstandard transaction tomorrow.\n\n\nOn 9/15/2011 2:25 PM, Gavin Andresen wrote:\n\u003e Thanks Mike, that's exactly the kind of detailed review I was looking\n\u003e for. I think you're right an all points.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'll simplify: I'll add a -banscore option (default 100), and if a\n\u003e node accumulates more than -banscore misbehavior points it'll get\n\u003e dropped and banned for -bantime (default 60*60*24) seconds.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'll make bad signatures a banning offense, and I'll remove the\n\u003e number-of-sigops and non-standard-transaction penalties.\n\u003e\n\u003e I used a mutable field with const setter to avoid modifying a bunch of\n\u003e methods to take non-const blocks/transactions instead of const; I\n\u003e think it is appropriate because a block/transaction's DoS score is\n\u003e really meta-data and not part of it's state.\n\u003e\n\u003e I'll make GetTime() unit-test friendly as you suggest.\n\u003e\n\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20110915/d97d1e45/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "d38042fcb75f92708c1c07b889be82514a90bf798201c18ecf3496403a9e6692396ec6e9f3fecc73930cfe15b487e2d1266369ae9139c6169c7cb0191eb00a9a"
}