MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2906888200 · doi:10.1109/ncg.2018.8593177

Novel Sybil Defense Scheme for Peer–to–peer Applications

2018· article· en· W2906888200 on OpenAlexaff
Fuad Shamieh, Roa Alharbi

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSybil attackComputer scienceComputer networkScalabilityServerOverlay networkRobustness (evolution)Peer-to-peerScheme (mathematics)Computer securityNetwork addressDistributed computingWireless sensor networkThe InternetWorld Wide WebOperating system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The importance of peer-to-peer (P2P) network overlays produced enormous interest in the research community due to their robustness, scalability, and increase of data availability. P2P networks are overlays of logically connected hosts and other nodes including servers. P2P networks allow users to share their files without the need for any centralized servers. Since P2P networks are largely constructed of end-hosts, they are susceptible to abuse and malicious activity, such as sybil attacks. Impostors perform sybil attacks by assigning nodes multiple addresses, as opposed to a single address, with the goal of degrading network quality. Sybil nodes will spread malicious data and provide bogus responses to requests. To prevent sybil attacks from occurring, a novel defense mechanism is proposed. In the proposed scheme, the DHT key-space is divided and treated in a similar manner to radio frequency allocation incensing. An overlay of trusted nodes is used to detect and handle sybil nodes with the aid of source-destination pairs reporting on each other. The simulation results show that the proposed scheme detects sybil nodes in large sized networks with thousands of interactions.

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 categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.504
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.001
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.299
Teacher spread0.263 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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