MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

A Composite Malicious Peer Eviction Mechanism for Super-P2P Systems

2018· article· en· W2889948981 on OpenAlexaff
Hatem Ismail, Stefanie Roos, Neeraj Suri

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceOverlayOverhead (engineering)Computer networkComputer securityPeer-to-peerMechanism (biology)Distributed computingNetwork topologyOverlay networkThe InternetWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Large-scale P2P applications (e.g., social networking, online gaming, video streaming) that host millions of users increasingly rely upon semi-structured super-P2P systems to provide efficient services in dynamic environments. Given the critical role of 'super peers' in such topologies, attackers target super peers due to the resultant high damage on P2P services. In this paper, we consider the prominent class of Outgoing Eclipse Attacks (OEA) where an attacker aims to block the communication by controlling all the outgoing connections of honest super peers. Our interest on OEA stems from the fact that our simulation studies reveal that OEAs can cause up to 90% of all service requests to fail. Our attack mitigation relies upon a novel (a) monitoring and (b) malicious peer eviction scheme based on a composite proactive and reactive mechanism. Our proactive mechanism enforces an upper bound on the number of connections an attacker can establish, whereas our reactive mechanism expels malicious peers from the overlay using a distributed consensus protocol. We show that our protection mechanism is highly effective and exhibits a low false-positive rate. Our extensive simulation study validates the analytical results over a large range of parameters with observed detection accuracies of 99% and throughput enhancements of up to 100% while entailing an overhead of less than 5%.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.869
Threshold uncertainty score0.623

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.022
GPT teacher head0.264
Teacher spread0.242 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicPeer-to-Peer Network TechnologiesFrench-language works237,207