Changelog v1.6.4

It wouldn’t matter, if not at least 29 nodes have forgotten about the previously used serial, whether they are the same or different, the download will fail. If the size of the mem pool is chosen well (and I’m sure some thought has gone into that), this would be a virtual impossibility. It’s a game of chance, sure there is a possibility that 29 nodes will drop the serial for the same segment. But if a customer would fail 99 out of 100 double spend attempts it really isn’t worth it especially if that means you only get to download the same thing twice in a short time span. Were arguing about a really theoretical problem. If you’re worried about it, try to exploit it and see how far you get.

5 Likes

i got no idea what you guys are actually talking about lol… xD but it sure sounds like something that could shut down the entire network if it isn’t working correctly…

so maybe just remember to check that it won’t choke the entire system on some kind of failure…

i mean security measures are good, but they can be dangerous for network reliability, while if people can download stuff twice for 24 hours because something fails doesn’t seem that dangerous to me…

ofc that might just be due to my lack of understanding what this system/scheme actually does…

just saying keep in mind stuff will fail, and if its not something that can be short term exploited, its better that the system allows continued network operation and informs a maintenance crew that something is broken, even if some low the medium level exploits become opened up…

ofc one would have the determine what could actually be the exploits… double unpaid bandwidth usage seems kinda low prio, compared to maybe being able to getting all 29 pieces of a customer data … block… which would be bad… even if it should require more energy than the sun puts out in 30 years to decrypt it on a perfect computer… but yeah… well they would still be getting closer to abusing something :smiley:

1 Like

You can make your post better by following these

  1. https://storj.io/whitepaper/

  2. https://github.com/storj/storj

5 Likes

They can’t

To give more chances for storagenode to submit them to the satellite.

But of course, uplink can downlad twice triple and so on with a new orders (and new serials) each time.

it’s was an example of the duration of an exploit before patched… not related to any existing timers in the code which i don’t understand nor care to understand…

24 hours seems perfectly reasonable time to patch a critical bug…

was just trying to say, it’s dangerous to put in code that can shut down a network if one aim’s for 99.99% uptime, which is what this sounded like…

Seems we treated “shutdown the network” a little bit differently. For me “shutdown the network” - it’s unable to upload or download to/from the network.
This is not the change which can do this.
For other possible bugs in the release we have a slow rollout process, when we updates nodes slowly.


It’s already was helpful with

1 Like

i just understood the serials as being the control what can be transmitted or not… sounds important for tracking stuff… which serials usually is… but whatever, sorry i commented

The serial would exist only in one case - the download is happened. So, no customers are affected.
There is a possibility that 29 nodes will drop the same serial number for an hour at the same time that a malicious uplink tries to cheat.
It’s virtually impossible

6 Likes

And lets not forget that the only prize at the end of this long tunnel of modding the uplink software to retry downloads with the same serial first, fail most of the time, wasting performance, causing delays, wasting bandwidth etc, is… you get to download a tiny fraction of data a second time for free within 1 hour. But in order to maybe get a rare piece downloaded for free you will have to try it for all of them because there is no way for the customer to know which serials were dropped.

If you had workloads where you often need data more than once in an hour, it would be a million times cheaper to just implement a local cache and prevent having to download it again in the first place. It’s near impossible to exploit and there is nothing to really gain from it.

It’s a non-existent problem.

3 Likes

It’s also important to add that the supposed issue of deleted serials only happens under two conditions:

  1. The node has greater than 1 MB of stored serials in the RAM database.
  2. The node reboots or restarts.

My node sees about 2000 serials per hour. The current 48 hour database is about 11 MB. So, a RAM database for 1 hour is very unlikely to exceed 1 MB.

Node reboots and restarts occur, but not often. I’ve automated about 3 restarts a month.

So, for the two possible conditions enabling a very unlikely double spend for no benefit to the cheater, one will almost never occur and the other will only occur very rarely.

However, it should be pointed out that if the RAM database was an order of magnitude smaller and a “Ring” filter, as someone suggested, was applied to the timestamp expiration on the serials… cheating would be much more likely since all 29 pieces would be available for double spend across the network in a predictable pattern. Thus the random selection for deletion of serials is significantly better than using a time based deletion… If, only if, the serial storage exceeds 1 MB in 1 Hr.

4 Likes

Thanks for joining the conversation, but I think you missed the point.
The issue mentioned is quite a technical one and I think without understanding the entire workings of the change we’re all just making assumptions.

Thanks for your response, but that wasn’t an assumption.

i also did state that i had no real clue about it, my only intention was to inspire people to think, and assume that everything will fail, and that prediction / assumption of failure of all individual parts and engineering to expect this, equals future reliability.

one thing that doesn’t really make sense then, is that little skunk said the serials was used to avoid exploits, but if they are used after the fact as a logging feature… then it shouldn’t be exploitable.

maybe the prize as you say, might be that if one can download a piece like say 1 hour afterwards, then it might be possible for someone to collect all 29 pieces and not be the actual owner of the pieces… ofc then they would have the difficult task of decryption the data, but the assumption that there is nothing gained by an exploit is a security failure in the making…

sure what one can imagine a malicious actor could do with an exploit might not be useful for anything, but when a malicious actor digs around enough, eventually they can collect enough exploits and figures out a new way to combine them to make something useful out of it… meaning malicious exploit.

Lets not start making things up now. The only “exploit” serials are meant to protect against is the same customer downloading the same segment again within an hour without paying for the second download. There is no way anyone else can get their hands on the data just because serials are dropped. The rights management systems for that haven’t been touched with this change.

1 Like

I did a few tests with my node. If I reduce the serial cache to 50KB I can see that the monkit metric is working.

delete_random_serial,scope=storj.io/storj/storagenode/piecestore/usedserials rate=0.435235
delete_random_serial,scope=storj.io/storj/storagenode/piecestore/usedserials total=3440.000000

With a cache size of 100KB I don’t see it anymore. I am running 6 nodes. 2 of them are unvetted and don’t get full traffic at the moment but lets assume the incoming traffic is split on 6 nodes. With about 600KB I should be more then safe right now. The default is 1MB.

However I still recommend that you run this test on your own storage node. I would expect the more data you are holding the more serial numbers you will have to process. I have increase the serial number cache to 1GB on my storage node just because I can.

2 Likes

It would be good to know roughly what is the recommended ratio to set this value based on data stored. Or better yet based on max available data in TB’s. :+1:

Could you elaborate a little on what these 2 numbers are?

An indicator whether or not your storage node has dropped a serial number because of memory limitations.

So in your example 43.5% dropped and an absolute number of 3440 dropped?

3440 times a random order was dropped. I am not sure about the percentage. I would say with a memory limit of 50KB it is hard to give that percentage any value. We could improve the monkit data to get a better understanding of how many serial numbers have been processed. Is 3340 a high amount or a low amount compared to the total? However with 100KB my node is not dropping any serial numbers which means I would never see the additional monkit data anyway.

1 Like