Papers
Topics
Authors
Recent
Assistant
AI Research Assistant
Well-researched responses based on relevant abstracts and paper content.
Custom Instructions Pro
Preferences or requirements that you'd like Emergent Mind to consider when generating responses.
Gemini 2.5 Flash
Gemini 2.5 Flash 183 tok/s
Gemini 2.5 Pro 49 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 Medium 29 tok/s Pro
GPT-5 High 24 tok/s Pro
GPT-4o 97 tok/s Pro
Kimi K2 221 tok/s Pro
GPT OSS 120B 440 tok/s Pro
Claude Sonnet 4.5 38 tok/s Pro
2000 character limit reached

BFT-PoLoc: A Byzantine Fortified Trigonometric Proof of Location Protocol using Internet Delays (2403.13230v2)

Published 20 Mar 2024 in cs.NI

Abstract: Internet platforms depend on accurately determining the geographical locations of online users to deliver targeted services (e.g., advertising). The advent of decentralized platforms (blockchains) emphasizes the importance of geographically distributed nodes, making the validation of locations more crucial. In these decentralized settings, mutually non-trusting participants need to {\em prove} their locations to each other. The incentives for claiming desired location include decentralization properties (validators of a blockchain), explicit rewards for improving coverage (physical infrastructure blockchains) and regulatory compliance -- and entice participants towards prevaricating their true location malicious via VPNs, tampering with internet delays, or compromising other parties (challengers) to misrepresent their location. Traditional delay-based geolocation methods focus on reducing the noise in measurements and are very vulnerable to wilful divergences from prescribed protocol. In this paper we use Internet delay measurements to securely prove the location of IP addresses while being immune to a large fraction of Byzantine actions. Our core methods are to endow Internet telemetry tools (e.g., ping) with cryptographic primitives (signatures and hash functions) together with Byzantine resistant data inferences subject to Euclidean geometric constraints. We introduce two new networking protocols, robust against Byzantine actions: Proof of Internet Geometry (PoIG) converts delay measurements into precise distance estimates across the Internet; Proof of Location (PoLoc) enables accurate and efficient multilateration of a specific IP address. The key algorithmic innovations are in conducting ``Byzantine fortified trigonometry" (BFT) inferences of data, endowing low rank matrix completion methods with Byzantine resistance.

Definition Search Book Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com
References (60)
  1. “Amazon Web Services,” https://aws.amazon.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  2. “Bitcoin,” https://bitcoin.org/en/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  3. “Dart,” https://dart.dev/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  4. “Dart Multiple Platform Support,” https://dart.dev/multiplatform-apps, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  5. “Ethereum,” https://ethereum.org/en/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  6. “Filecoin,” https://filecoin.io/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  7. “Github Link,” https://github.com/ProofofX/ProofofLocation, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  8. “Helium,” https://www.helium.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  9. “HostIP,” https://www.hostip.info/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  10. “IP2Location,” https://www.ip2location.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  11. “IPInfoDB,” https://www.ipinfodb.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  12. “MAXMIND,” https://www.maxmind.com/en/home, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  13. “Mysterium VPN,” https://www.mysteriumvpn.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  14. “Oneprovider,” https://oneprovider.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  15. “Proof of Location UI,” https://payerapp-dev.pob.witnesschain.com/provers-map-view, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  16. “RIPE Atlas,” https://atlas.ripe.net/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  17. “Sia,” https://sia.tech/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  18. “Solana,” https://solana.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  19. “Stackpath,” https://www.stackpath.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  20. “VPS Server,” https://www.vpsserver.com/, [Online; accessed 12-October-2023].
  21. A. Abdou, A. Matrawy, and P. Van Oorschot, “Cpv: Delay-based location verification for the internet,” in IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing, 2015.
  22. ——, “Accurate manipulation of delay-based internet geolocation,” in Proceedings of the 2017 ACM on Asia Conference on Computer and Communications Security, 2017.
  23. M. Arif, S. Karunasekera, and S. Kulkarni, “Geoweight: Internet host geolocation based on a probability model for latency measurements,” in Proceedings of the Thirty-Third Australasian Conferenc on Computer Science, 2010.
  24. M. Arif, S. Karunasekera, S. Kulkarni, A. Gunatilaka, and B. Ristic, “Internet host geolocation using maximum likelihood estimation technique,” in International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications, 2010.
  25. B. Chandrasekaran, M. Bai, M. Schoenfield, A. Berger, N. Caruso, G. Economou, S. Gilliss, B. Maggs, K. Moses, D. Duff, and K. Ng, “Alidade: Ip geolocation without active probing,” in Department of Computer Science, Duke University, Tech. Rep. CS-TR-2015.001, 2015.
  26. Y. Chen, A. Jalali, S. Sanghavi, and C. Caramanis, “Low-rank matrix recovery from errors and erasures,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 59, no. 7, pp. 4324–4337, 2013.
  27. Y. Chen, H. Xu, C. Caramanis, and S. Sanghavi, “Robust matrix completion and corrupted columns,” in Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Machine Learning (ICML-11), 2011, pp. 873–880.
  28. ——, “Matrix completion with column manipulation: Near-optimal sample-robustness-rank tradeoffs,” IEEE Transactions on Information Theory, vol. 62, no. 1, pp. 503–526, 2015.
  29. F. Dabek, R. Cox, F. Kaashoek, and R. Morris, “Vivaldi: A decentralized network coordinate system,” ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 15–26, 2004.
  30. O. Dan, V. Parikh, and B. Davison, “Improving ip geolocation using query logs,” in Proceedings of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Web Search and Data Mining, 2016.
  31. ——, “Distributed reverse dns geolocation,” in IEEE International Conference on Big Data, 2018.
  32. ——, “Ip geolocation using traceroute location propagation and ip range location interpolation,” in Companion Proceedings of the Web Conference, 2021.
  33. Z. Dong, R. Perera, R. Chandramouli, and K. Subbalakshmi, “Network measurement based modeling and optimization for ip geolocation,” in Computer Networks, 2012.
  34. B. Eriksson, P. Barford, B. Maggs, and R. Nowak, “Posit: a lightweight approach for ip geolocation,” in ACM SIGMETRICS Performance Evaluation Review, 2012.
  35. B. Eriksson, P. Barford, J. Sommers, and R. Nowak, “A learning-based approach for ip geolocation,” in In Passive and Active Measurement: 11th International Conference, PAM 2010, 2010.
  36. B. Eriksson and M. Crovella, “Understanding geolocation accuracy using network geometry,” in Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, 2013.
  37. P. Gill, Y. Ganjali, and B. Wong, “Dude, where’s that IP? circumventing measurement-based IP geolocation,” in USENIX Security Symposium, 2010.
  38. B. Gueye, A. Ziviani, M. Crovella, and S. Fdida, “Constraint-based geolocation of internet hosts,” in Proceedings of IMC, 2004.
  39. C. Guo, Y. Liu, W. Shen, H. Wang, Q. Yu, and Y. Zhang, “Mining the web and the internet for accurate ip address geolocations,” in IEEE INFOCOM, 2009.
  40. A. Hong, Y. Li, H. Zhang, M. Wang, C. An, and J. Wang, “A cheap and accurate delay-based ip geolocation method using machine learning and looking glass,” in 2023 IFIP Networking Conference (IFIP Networking).   IEEE, 2023, pp. 1–9.
  41. R. Jayant and E. Katz-Bassett, “Toward better geolocation: Improving internet distance estimates using route traces,” in Report, The Pennsylvania State University, 2004.
  42. H. Jiang, Y. Liu, and J. Matthews, “Ip geolocation estimation using neural networks with stable landmarks,” in IEEE Conference on Computer Communications Workshops (INFOCOM WKSHPS), 2016.
  43. S. Kasiviswanathan, S. Eidenbenz, and G. Yan, “Geography-based analysis of the internet infrastructure,” in Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, 2011.
  44. E. Katz-Bassett, J. John, A. Krishnamurthy, D. Wetherall, T. Anderson, and Y. Chawathe, “Towards ip geolocation using delay and topology measurements,” in Proceedings of the 6th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet measurement, 2006.
  45. K. Kohls and C. Diaz, “{{\{{VerLoc}}\}}: Verifiable localization in decentralized systems,” in 31st USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 22), 2022, pp. 2637–2654.
  46. S. Laki, P. Mátray, P. Hága, T. Sebők, I. Csabai, and G. Vattay, “Spotter: A model based active geolocation service,” in Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM, 2011.
  47. Y. Lee, H. Park, and Y. Lee, “Ip geolocation with a crowd-sourcing broadband performance tool,” in ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2016.
  48. Y. Mao and L. K. Saul, “Modeling distances in large-scale networks by matrix factorization,” in Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCOMM conference on Internet Measurement, 2004, pp. 278–287.
  49. D. Maram, I. Bentov, M. Kelkar, and A. Juels, “Goat: File geolocation via anchor timestamping,” Cryptology ePrint Archive, 2021.
  50. A. Montanari and S. Oh, “On positioning via distributed matrix completion,” in 2010 IEEE Sensor Array and Multichannel Signal Processing Workshop.   IEEE, 2010, pp. 197–200.
  51. J. Muir and P. Oorschot, “Internet geolocation: Evasion and counterevasion,” in Acm computing surveys (csur), 2009.
  52. V. Padamanabban and L. Subramanian, “Determining the geographic location of internet hosts,” in Proceeding of ACM SIGMETRICS international conference on Measurement and modeling of computer systems, 2001.
  53. V. Padmanabhan and L. Subramanian, “An investigation of geographic mapping techniques for internet hosts,” in Proceedings of the 2001 conference on Applications, technologies, architectures, and protocols for computer communications, 2001.
  54. I. Poese, S. Uhlig, M. Kaafar, B. Donnet, and B. Gueye, “Ip geolocation databases: Unreliable?” in ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 2011.
  55. Q. Scheitle, O. Gasser, P. Sattler, and G. Carle, “Hloc: Hints-based geolocation leveraging multiple measurement frameworks,” in Network Traffic Measurement and Analysis Conference (TMA), 2017.
  56. Y. Wang, D. Burgener, M. Flores, A. Kuzmanovic, and C. Huang, “Towards Street-LevelClient-IndependentIP geolocation,” in USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 11), 2011.
  57. Z. Weinberg, S. Cho, N. Christin, V. Sekar, and P. Gill, “How to catch when proxies lie: Verifying the physical locations of network proxies with active geolocation,” in Proceedings of the Internet Measurement Conference, 2018.
  58. B. Wong, I. Stoyanov, and E. Sirer, “Octant: A comprehensive framework for the geolocalization of internet hosts,” in Proceedings of NSDI, 2007.
  59. I. Youn, B. Mark, and D. Richards, “Statistical geolocation of internet hosts,” in Proceedings of 18th International Conference on Computer Communications and Networks, 2009.
  60. A. Ziviani, S. Fdida, J. De Rezende, and O. Duarte, “Improving the accuracy of measurement-based geographic location of internet hosts,” in Computer Networks, 2005.

Summary

  • The paper presents BFT-PoLoc, a Byzantine-fault-tolerant protocol enabling secure node location proof in decentralized systems using internet delays, comprising PoIG for robust distance estimation and PoLoc for location verification.
  • PoIG uses ratio-based filtering and matrix completion achieving over 95% accuracy in distance under attacks, while PoLoc uses BFT trigonometry for location verification and uncertainty estimation.
  • Evaluated on Ethereum and Solana, BFT-PoLoc achieves location accuracy within 100 km and effectively resists spoofing and VPNs, offering robust support for secure decentralized services.

BFT-PoLoc: A Byzantine Fault Tolerant Proof of Location Protocol

The paper "BFT-PoLoc: A Byzantine Fortified Trigonometric Proof of Location Protocol using Internet Delays" introduces a novel protocol that allows nodes in decentralized internet platforms to prove their geographical locations securely and resiliently against Byzantine attacks. This capability is critical for maintaining decentralization, regulatory compliance, and effective service delivery in blockchain-based systems. The need for such solutions arises due to the potential misrepresentation of locations by participants using VPNs or by manipulating internet delays to gain unearned advantages in decentralized networks.

The core of this protocol builds on the resilience against Byzantine actions, which are characterized by nodes behaving arbitrarily or maliciously. The authors propose two complementary protocols: Proof of Internet Geometry (PoIG) and Proof of Location (PoLoc). PoIG is designed to derive distance estimates from delay measurements that are robust against Byzantine manipulations. PoLoc is employed to verify the claimed geographical location of a node through Byzantine fault-tolerant computations.

Methodological Advancements

In addressing the challenge of Byzantine fault tolerance in geolocation, the authors introduce a system that integrates cryptographic verification processes with geometric constraints. This integration enables the accurate conversion of internet delays into distance estimations while providing mechanisms for robust multilateration of node locations. Key algorithmic components include:

  1. Proof of Internet Geometry (PoIG):
    • Implements ratio-based filtering to mitigate inflated delay and distance reports.
    • Utilizes robust matrix completion methods to construct efficient and reliable delay-to-distance mappings.
    • Maintains over 95% accuracy under Byzantine distance inflation attacks given a majority of honest challengers.
  2. Proof of Location (PoLoc):
    • Employs Byzantine Fortified Trigonometry (BFT) to perform multilateration while mitigating adversarial disruptions.
    • Outputs the maximum potential deviation of a node from its claimed location (the "uncertainty") based on geometric inferences.

Implementation and Results

The BFT-PoLoc system was evaluated using a delay-based geolocation service integrated into both the Ethereum and Solana blockchains. The system demonstrated high effectiveness in identifying the true geographical area of nodes, achieving a location accuracy within 100 km for a considerable spatial extent. The protocol was demonstrated to robustly handle manipulation attempts, including location spoofing and VPN usage. Its performance exceeded the capabilities of traditional linear mapping methodologies used in delay-based geolocation, offering enhanced resistance to Byzantine challenges and adversarial behavior.

Implications and Future Work

The research presented in this paper has substantial implications for the design and operation of blockchain-based systems, notably enhancing location verification's robustness, necessary for ensuring the decentralization and integrity of distributed services. Practically, this protocol can support robust network topologies required for distributed file storage, VPN services, and distributed wireless networks in the blockchain ecosystem.

The proposed PoIG and PoLoc protocols advance the understanding and applicability of geolocation in trustless settings. Further development could explore deeper integrations with other consensus mechanisms or improve the efficiency and reduction of computational overhead. Expanding the adversarial model to include dynamic threats and environmental variables can further refine the system for broader applications. This research presents a significant step toward overcoming the inherent challenges of proving locations in decentralized networks, setting a foundation for more secure and resilient internet service models in the future.

List To Do Tasks Checklist Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com

Collections

Sign up for free to add this paper to one or more collections.

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

Tweets

This paper has been mentioned in 10 tweets and received 159 likes.

Upgrade to Pro to view all of the tweets about this paper:

Youtube Logo Streamline Icon: https://streamlinehq.com