Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash
184 tokens/sec
GPT-4o
7 tokens/sec
Gemini 2.5 Pro Pro
45 tokens/sec
o3 Pro
4 tokens/sec
GPT-4.1 Pro
38 tokens/sec
DeepSeek R1 via Azure Pro
28 tokens/sec
2000 character limit reached

Heterogeneity- and homophily-induced vulnerability of a P2P network formation model: the IOTA auto-peering protocol (2401.12633v1)

Published 23 Jan 2024 in cs.SI and cs.CR

Abstract: IOTA is a distributed ledger technology that relies on a peer-to-peer (P2P) network for communications. Recently an auto-peering algorithm was proposed to build connections among IOTA peers according to their "Mana" endowment, which is an IOTA internal reputation system. This paper's goal is to detect potential vulnerabilities and evaluate the resilience of the P2P network generated using IOTA auto-peering algorithm against eclipse attacks. In order to do so, we interpret IOTA's auto-peering algorithm as a random network formation model and employ different network metrics to identify cost-efficient partitions of the network. As a result, we present a potential strategy that an attacker can use to eclipse a significant part of the network, providing estimates of costs and potential damage caused by the attack. On the side, we provide an analysis of the properties of IOTA auto-peering network ensemble, as an interesting class of homophile random networks in between 1D lattices and regular Poisson graphs.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (52)
  1. S. Lawrence and C. L. Giles, “Accessibility of information on the web,” intelligence, vol. 11, no. 1, pp. 32–39, 2000.
  2. R. F. i Cancho, C. Janssen, and R. V. Solé, “Topology of technology graphs: Small world patterns in electronic circuits,” Physical Review E, vol. 64, no. 4, p. 046119, 2001.
  3. J. Heidemann, M. Klier, and F. Probst, “Online social networks: A survey of a global phenomenon,” Computer networks, vol. 56, no. 18, pp. 3866–3878, 2012.
  4. N. Masinde and K. Graffi, “Peer-to-peer-based social networks: A comprehensive survey,” SN Computer Science, vol. 1, no. 5, p. 299, 2020.
  5. S. Androutsellis-Theotokis and D. Spinellis, “A survey of peer-to-peer content distribution technologies,” ACM computing surveys (CSUR), vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 335–371, 2004.
  6. S. Nakamoto, “Bitcoin: A peer-to-peer electronic cash system,” Decentralized business review, p. 21260, 2008.
  7. N. El Ioini and C. Pahl, “A review of distributed ledger technologies,” in On the Move to Meaningful Internet Systems. OTM 2018 Conferences: Confederated International Conferences: CoopIS, C&TC, and ODBASE 2018, Valletta, Malta, October 22-26, 2018, Proceedings, Part II.   Springer, 2018, pp. 277–288.
  8. B. Kraner, N. Vallarano, C. Schwarz-Schilling, and C. J. Tessone, “Agent-based modelling of ethereum consensus,” in 2023 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC).   IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–8.
  9. G. Wood et al., “Ethereum: A secure decentralised generalised transaction ledger,” Ethereum project yellow paper, vol. 151, no. 2014, pp. 1–32, 2014.
  10. A. Miller, J. Litton, A. Pachulski, N. Gupta, D. Levin, N. Spring, B. Bhattacharjee et al., “Discovering bitcoin’s public topology and influential nodes,” et al, 2015.
  11. V. Deshpande, H. Badis, and L. George, “Btcmap: Mapping bitcoin peer-to-peer network topology,” in 2018 IFIP/IEEE International Conference on Performance Evaluation and Modeling in Wired and Wireless Networks (PEMWN).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6.
  12. S. K. Kim, Z. Ma, S. Murali, J. Mason, A. Miller, and M. Bailey, “Measuring ethereum network peers,” in Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference 2018, 2018, pp. 91–104.
  13. M. A. Imtiaz, D. Starobinski, A. Trachtenberg, and N. Younis, “Churn in the bitcoin network: Characterization and impact,” in 2019 IEEE International Conference on Blockchain and Cryptocurrency (ICBC).   IEEE, 2019, pp. 431–439.
  14. E. Heilman, A. Kendler, A. Zohar, and S. Goldberg, “Eclipse attacks on bitcoin’s peer-to-peer network,” in 24th {normal-{\{{USENIX}normal-}\}} Security Symposium ({normal-{\{{USENIX}normal-}\}} Security 15), 2015, pp. 129–144.
  15. K. Nayak, S. Kumar, A. Miller, and E. Shi, “Stubborn mining: Generalizing selfish mining and combining with an eclipse attack,” in 2016 IEEE European Symposium on Security and Privacy (EuroS&P).   IEEE, 2016, pp. 305–320.
  16. M. Apostolaki, A. Zohar, and L. Vanbever, “Hijacking bitcoin: Routing attacks on cryptocurrencies,” in 2017 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP).   IEEE, 2017, pp. 375–392.
  17. M. Tran, I. Choi, G. J. Moon, A. V. Vu, and M. S. Kang, “A stealthier partitioning attack against bitcoin peer-to-peer network,” in 2020 IEEE symposium on security and privacy (SP).   IEEE, 2020, pp. 894–909.
  18. S. Müller, A. Capossele, B. Kuśmierz, V. Lin, H. Moog, A. Penzkofer, O. Saa, W. Sanders, and W. Welz, “Salt-based autopeering for dlt-networks,” in 2021 3rd Conference on Blockchain Research & Applications for Innovative Networks and Services (BRAINS).   IEEE, 2021, pp. 165–169.
  19. J. Moubarak, E. Filiol, and M. Chamoun, “On blockchain security and relevant attacks,” in 2018 IEEE Middle East and North Africa Communications Conference (MENACOMM).   IEEE, 2018, pp. 1–6.
  20. I. Dobson, B. A. Carreras, V. E. Lynch, and D. E. Newman, “Complex systems analysis of series of blackouts: Cascading failure, critical points, and self-organization,” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 17, no. 2, 2007.
  21. S. Arianos, E. Bompard, A. Carbone, and F. Xue, “Power grid vulnerability: A complex network approach,” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 19, no. 1, 2009.
  22. P. Hines, E. Cotilla-Sanchez, and S. Blumsack, “Do topological models provide good information about electricity infrastructure vulnerability?” Chaos: An Interdisciplinary Journal of Nonlinear Science, vol. 20, no. 3, 2010.
  23. D. J. Watts and S. H. Strogatz, “Collective dynamics of ‘small-world’networks,” nature, vol. 393, no. 6684, pp. 440–442, 1998.
  24. A. Vespignani, “Modelling dynamical processes in complex socio-technical systems,” Nature physics, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 32–39, 2012.
  25. D. J. Watts, R. Muhamad, D. C. Medina, and P. S. Dodds, “Multiscale, resurgent epidemics in a hierarchical metapopulation model,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 102, no. 32, pp. 11 157–11 162, 2005.
  26. A. Singh, T.-W. Ngan, P. Druschel, D. S. Wallach et al., “Eclipse attacks on overlay networks: Threats and defenses,” 2006.
  27. D. Khan, L. T. Jung, and M. A. Hashmani, “Systematic literature review of challenges in blockchain scalability,” Applied Sciences, vol. 11, no. 20, p. 9372, 2021.
  28. S. Popov, “The tangle,” White paper, vol. 1, no. 3, 2018.
  29. S. Popov, H. Moog, D. Camargo, A. Capossele, V. Dimitrov, A. Gal, A. Greve, B. Kusmierz, S. Mueller, A. Penzkofer et al., “The coordicide,” Accessed Jan, pp. 1–30, 2020.
  30. J. R. Douceur, “The sybil attack,” in International workshop on peer-to-peer systems.   Springer, 2002, pp. 251–260.
  31. A. Cheng and E. Friedman, “Sybilproof reputation mechanisms,” in Proceedings of the 2005 ACM SIGCOMM workshop on Economics of peer-to-peer systems, 2005, pp. 128–132.
  32. M. E. Newman, “Assortative mixing in networks,” Physical review letters, vol. 89, no. 20, p. 208701, 2002.
  33. G. Kossinets and D. J. Watts, “Origins of homophily in an evolving social network,” American journal of sociology, vol. 115, no. 2, pp. 405–450, 2009.
  34. C. R. Shalizi and A. C. Thomas, “Homophily and contagion are generically confounded in observational social network studies,” Sociological methods & research, vol. 40, no. 2, pp. 211–239, 2011.
  35. R. Hasheminezhad and U. Brandes, “Robustness of preferential-attachment graphs,” Applied Network Science, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 1–19, 2023.
  36. J. Moody, “Race, school integration, and friendship segregation in america,” American journal of Sociology, vol. 107, no. 3, pp. 679–716, 2001.
  37. M. E. Newman, “The structure of scientific collaboration networks,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 98, no. 2, pp. 404–409, 2001.
  38. D. J. Watts, “Networks, dynamics, and the small-world phenomenon,” American Journal of sociology, vol. 105, no. 2, pp. 493–527, 1999.
  39. M. Barthelemy, “Betweenness centrality in large complex networks,” The European physical journal B, vol. 38, no. 2, pp. 163–168, 2004.
  40. U. Brandes, “A faster algorithm for betweenness centrality,” Journal of mathematical sociology, vol. 25, no. 2, pp. 163–177, 2001.
  41. ——, “On variants of shortest-path betweenness centrality and their generic computation,” Social networks, vol. 30, no. 2, pp. 136–145, 2008.
  42. C. Campajola, R. Cristodaro, F. M. De Collibus, T. Yan, N. Vallarano, and C. J. Tessone, “The evolution of centralisation on cryptocurrency platforms,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.05081, 2022.
  43. I. Makarov and A. Schoar, “Blockchain analysis of the bitcoin market,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Tech. Rep., 2021.
  44. U. W. Chohan, “Cryptocurrencies and inequality,” in Cryptofinance: A New Currency for a New Economy.   World Scientific, 2022, pp. 49–62.
  45. A. R. Sai, J. Buckley, and A. Le Gear, “Characterizing wealth inequality in cryptocurrencies,” Frontiers in Blockchain, vol. 4, p. 38, 2021.
  46. L. C. Freeman, “A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness,” Sociometry, pp. 35–41, 1977.
  47. M. Girvan and M. E. Newman, “Community structure in social and biological networks,” Proceedings of the national academy of sciences, vol. 99, no. 12, pp. 7821–7826, 2002.
  48. M. Fiedler, “Algebraic connectivity of graphs,” Czechoslovak mathematical journal, vol. 23, no. 2, pp. 298–305, 1973.
  49. J. Saramäki, M. Kivelä, J.-P. Onnela, K. Kaski, and J. Kertesz, “Generalizations of the clustering coefficient to weighted complex networks,” Physical Review E, vol. 75, no. 2, p. 027105, 2007.
  50. Z. Yang, R. Algesheimer, and C. J. Tessone, “A comparative analysis of community detection algorithms on artificial networks,” Scientific reports, vol. 6, no. 1, pp. 1–18, 2016.
  51. B. W. Kernighan and S. Lin, “An efficient heuristic procedure for partitioning graphs,” The Bell system technical journal, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 291–307, 1970.
  52. B. Kusmierz and R. Overko, “How centralized is decentralized? comparison of wealth distribution in coins and tokens,” in 2022 IEEE International Conference on Omni-layer Intelligent Systems (COINS).   IEEE, 2022, pp. 1–6.

Summary

  • The paper demonstrates how preferential attachment based on Mana values creates exploitable vulnerabilities in the IOTA auto-peering network.
  • The authors simulate various attack strategies, including betweenness and greedy approaches, to identify cost-efficient disruption points.
  • The study highlights the importance of enhancing security in distributed ledger networks to counteract risks from homophily-driven node connections.

Analysis of the Vulnerability of the IOTA Auto-Peering Protocol to Network Attacks

The paper examines the vulnerabilities inherent within the IOTA auto-peering protocol, a peer-to-peer (P2P) network formation model tailored for IOTA's distributed ledger technology. This paper primarily focuses on evaluating the susceptibility of this auto-peering network to eclipse and partitioning attacks, integrating elements of network science to model and dissect these vulnerabilities.

IOTA, distinct by its Tangle ledger based on a Directed Acyclic Graph (DAG) rather than a blockchain, seeks to resolve scalability issues inherent to conventional blockchains. However, this novel approach introduces unique challenges, notably the auto-peering protocol, which organizes nodes based on a "Mana" reputation index—a measure of each node’s influence within the network.

Network Formation Model and Methodology

The authors conceptualize the IOTA auto-peering protocol as a random network formation model, employing network metrics to discern cost-efficient ways to partition the network. The auto-peering algorithm constructs P2P networks by allowing nodes to preferentially connect with others possessing similar Mana values, reflecting homophily in network ties, a process observed in sociological studies.

Mana distribution in the simulations adheres to a Zipf’s law, commonly found in systems reflecting proportional growth mechanisms like that seen among validators in Proof-of-Work or Proof-of-Stake systems. The formation model also accounts for parameters such as the connection tolerance parameter (ρ), rank-based connection radius (R), and the network size (N).

Attack Strategies and Simulation Results

To identify network vulnerabilities, the authors propose three types of attack strategies:

  1. Betweenness Strategy: Utilizing edge betweenness centrality to isolate high-impact edges for removal, thereby disrupting the network at critical junctures.
  2. Greedy Strategy: Focusing on Mana ranking to optimize partitioning by targeting nodes that can maximize disruption relative to the attack cost.
  3. Blind Strategy: Executed without full network topology knowledge, informed instead by statistical outcomes of the previous strategies.

Simulation results explicate a distinct vulnerability in the auto-peering network when specific parameters resemble typical cryptocurrency wealth distributions (i.e., Zipf's exponent near 1). Both Betweenness and Greedy strategies notably achieve damage-to-cost ratios peaking at a critical parameter setting, illustrating potential for substantial network disruption under strategic attacks.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

This paper underscores the potency of network science as a lens for evaluating P2P network vulnerabilities, highlighting how network heterogeneity and preferential attachment mechanisms, even when designed for resource efficiency or stabilizing connectivity, may actually precipitate exploitable structural weaknesses.

Practically, the paper warns of the risks in adopting the IOTA auto-peering model without additional security countermeasures, calling attention to its intermediate vulnerability profile—more susceptible than random network models yet slightly more robust than fully predictable 1D lattice structures.

Looking forward, this work implicates broader questions in the fields of distributed ledger technologies and network optimization, suggesting that resilience engineering will have to marry graph-theoretic scrutiny with adaptive security protocols to mitigate emergent risks.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the analysis offers an insightful critique of the IOTA auto-peering protocol's ability to mitigate eclipse attacks within its P2P topology. The findings speak to a broader domain of network vulnerabilities present in decentralized systems, particularly those leveraging homophily and reputation-based node interactions. This invites further exploration into developing more secure network architectures that preemptively address identified weaknesses without compromising on the foundational principles of decentralization.

X Twitter Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
Reddit Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com