the university of athens1 detecting reputation variations in p2p networks theodora dariotaki &...
Post on 19-Dec-2015
215 views
TRANSCRIPT
The University of Athens 1
Detecting Reputation Variations Detecting Reputation Variations in P2P Networksin P2P Networks
Theodora Dariotaki & Alex Delis
Deprt. of Informatics & Telecommunications
The University of Athens
(th.dariotaki, ad)@di.uoa.gr
The University of Athens 2
•How do reputation schemes work?
•Why we might want to detect reputation variations?
A
C
B
Basic QuestionsBasic Questions
The University of Athens 3
Reputation Monitoring Mechanism Reputation Monitoring Mechanism (RMM)(RMM)
• Monitors the reputation variations of offerersMonitors the reputation variations of offerers
• Limits abrupt changes of reputation valuesLimits abrupt changes of reputation values
• New conceptsNew concepts RVM peers (Reputation Variation Monitor)RVM peers (Reputation Variation Monitor) EpochEpoch Storage Structures:Storage Structures:
• DPE:DPE: DDirectirect PPeereer EExperience Tablexperience Table
• DRE:DRE: DDirectirect RResourceesource EExperience Tablexperience Table• RT:RT: RReputation eputation TTable able (RVM Only)(RVM Only)
The University of Athens 4
Q: Where is the resource located? Q: Where is the resource located? Requester Requester qq dispatches an dispatches an AskResource message asking for message asking for
resource resource ss Offerers reply with a Offerers reply with a HoldResource message message
- - Dispatch: The message is forwarded in a scope of Dispatch: The message is forwarded in a scope of hh hops from hops from q q or or until answered by a resource holderuntil answered by a resource holder
- - Cycles: Messages received more than once, are discardedCycles: Messages received more than once, are discarded
Phase I - Resource RequestPhase I - Resource Request
The University of Athens 5
Phase II - Recommendation RequestPhase II - Recommendation Request
Q: Are the offerers trustworthy?Q: Are the offerers trustworthy? Requester Requester qq dispatches an dispatches an AskRecom message for message for allall
offerers’ reputation and resource requested. offerers’ reputation and resource requested. First-Line (FL)First-Line (FL) recommenders respond with recommenders respond with PostRecom
messages.messages.
- - Prevention of blacklistingPrevention of blacklisting
The University of Athens 6
Phase III - Evaluation of Offerer/Resource ReputationPhase III - Evaluation of Offerer/Resource Reputation
Q: Are FL-recommenders reputable? Q: Are FL-recommenders reputable? If If Direct Peer Experience > Direct Peer Experience > θθ recommendation acceptedrecommendation accepted If If qq has never communicated with a FL-recommender, has never communicated with a FL-recommender,
qq dispatches an dispatches an AskRecom message for FL’s reputation. message for FL’s reputation.Second-Line (SL)Second-Line (SL) recommenders respond with recommenders respond with PostRecom
Q: Are SL-recommenders reputable? Q: Are SL-recommenders reputable? Only ifOnly if q q has direct experience with the SL-recommender and has direct experience with the SL-recommender and Direct Direct
Peer Experience > Peer Experience > θθ the the recommendation is acceptedrecommendation is accepted
qq may rely may rely - on its own opinion - on its own opinion - on the recommenders’ opinion - on the recommenders’ opinion - on both- on both
The University of Athens 7
Phase IV – Offerer SelectionPhase IV – Offerer SelectionBaseline Reputation Scheme (BRS)Baseline Reputation Scheme (BRS)
A peer is candidate for resource downloading if both:A peer is candidate for resource downloading if both:reputation level of the reputation level of the resource holder resource holder reputation level of the reputation level of the hosted resource hosted resource
exceed a threshold exceed a threshold θθ..
Candidate peers are sorted in a listCandidate peers are sorted in a list Random selection of one-of-top reputable peers to Random selection of one-of-top reputable peers to
prevent overloading of most reputable peersprevent overloading of most reputable peers Challenge-response handshake between requester and Challenge-response handshake between requester and
resource offerer to ensure resource possessionresource offerer to ensure resource possession Download initiationDownload initiation
The University of Athens 8
Phase IV – Offerer Selection (1/4)Phase IV – Offerer Selection (1/4)RMM SchemeRMM Scheme
Step a:Step a: Early Offerer Selection Early Offerer Selection Offers with Peer/Resource reputation level < Offers with Peer/Resource reputation level < θθ are discarded are discarded
Step b:Step b: Reputation Variation Request Reputation Variation Request Requester Requester qq dispatches anonymous dispatches anonymous AskRVM messagesmessages RVMRVMss respond with respond with RVMReply messagesmessages
- reputation levels of offerers during last - reputation levels of offerers during last λλ epochs epochs
The University of Athens 9
Phase IV – Offerer Selection (2/4)Phase IV – Offerer Selection (2/4)
Relative Reputation Variation (V) Relative Reputation Variation (V) is computed for all offerersis computed for all offerersas the fraction as the fraction xx//yy
0.78
0.67
0.84
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.1
1 2 3 Time
Reput.Value
yx
Step c:Step c: Evaluation of Offerer Reputation Variation Evaluation of Offerer Reputation Variation
x: difference between a previous and the last x: difference between a previous and the last observed reputation level (0.67-0.84=observed reputation level (0.67-0.84=--0.17)0.17)
y: difference between the perfect reputation and y: difference between the perfect reputation and the lowest of the two reputation levels the lowest of the two reputation levels (1.00-0.67=0.33)(1.00-0.67=0.33)
52.033.0
17.0
V
The University of Athens 10
Step d:Step d: Reputation Update Reputation UpdateRequester Requester qq re-evaluates offerers’ reputation re-evaluates offerers’ reputation
Phase IV – Offerer Selection (3/4)Phase IV – Offerer Selection (3/4)
0.78
0.67
0.84
0.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.80.91.01.1
1 2 3 Time
Reput.Value
VxRR BRSRMM Dependence on 1 epochDependence on 1 epoch
1,2 2
i i
iiiiBRSRMM zVxzRR
General case: General case: λλ epochs epochs
x'y'
RRRMMRMM=0.79=0.79
2
)''( VxVxRR BRSRMM
Dependence on 2 epochsDependence on 2 epochs
yx
RRRMMRMM=0.75=0.75
The University of Athens 11
Step e:Step e: Final Offerer Selection Final Offerer Selection
Phase IV – Offerer Selection (4/4)Phase IV – Offerer Selection (4/4)
Candidate peers are sorted in a listCandidate peers are sorted in a list Random selection of one-of-top reputable peersRandom selection of one-of-top reputable peers Challenge-response handshake between rChallenge-response handshake between requester equester and and
resource offererresource offerer Download initiationDownload initiation
The University of Athens 12
Phase V – Resource Download & Experience UpdatesPhase V – Resource Download & Experience Updates
The The requester requester qq asks for resource asks for resource ss from the selected from the selected offerer offerer ppww by sending a by sending a DownloadReq message message
ppww sends the resourcesends the resource qq records its satisfaction in both records its satisfaction in both DPEDPE & & DREDRE tablestables
-DPE:-DPE: satisfaction concerning satisfaction concerning
selected offerer selected offerer ppww
FL-recommenders for FL-recommenders for ppww
SL-recommenders for every FL-recommender of SL-recommenders for every FL-recommender of ppww
-DRE: satisfaction concerning -DRE: satisfaction concerning downloaded resourcedownloaded resource
The University of Athens 13
ExampleExample
11 22
33
h = 31: requester
8&10: resource holders
AskResourceHoldResource
44
7766
88 99
1111
1212
1313
1010
Requester broadcasts an AskResource (h=3)Peers forward the query
Forwarding continues until max hops h are exceeded or the resource is found
Messages received twice are discarded
55
Resource holders reply with HoldResource
found
found
The University of Athens 14
ExampleExample
11 22
33
1: requester
8&10: resource holders
AskRecomPostRecom
44
7766
88 99
1111
1212
1313
1010
Requester broadcasts AskRecom for both 8 & 10 and resource s
11 replies for 8 with PostRecom
6 & 13 reply for 10
11 & 13 are unknown to requester
6 has been proven trustworthy
55
found
found
found
The University of Athens 15
ExampleExample
11 22
33
1: requester
8&10: resource holders
AskRecomPostRecom
44
7766
88 99
1111
1212
1313
1010
Requester dispatches an AskRecom for 11 & 13
12 replies for 11 with PostRecom
9 replies for 13 (but 9 is unknown to 1)
Assume that 12 claims that 11 is trustworthy. Then 11’s recomme-ndation for 8 is accepted.
55
found
found
The University of Athens 16
ExampleExample
11 22
33
1: requester
8&10: resource holders
DownloadReq
44
7766
88 99
1111
1212
1313
1010
Requester considers 8 to be more reputable than 10 and downloads the resource from 8 (BRS)
55
The University of Athens 17
ExampleExample(RMM)(RMM)
11 22
33
1: requester
8&10: resource holders
AskRVM
RVMReply
44
7766
88 99
1111
1212
1313
1010
Requester sends anonymous AskRVM asking for reputation variations on 8&10
14141515RVM
peers1616
RVMs respond with RVMReply sending the reputation values for 8&10 during previous λ epochs
Requester computes the Relative Variation Values for 8&10 and detects abrupt changes in 8’s reputation
55
The University of Athens 18
ExampleExample
11 22
33
1: requester
8&10: resource holders
DownloadReq
44
7766
88 99
1111
121255
1313
1010
Requester downloads the resource from 10
The University of Athens 19
BRS vs. RMMBRS vs. RMM
0.0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14
Time
Re
pu
t. L
eve
l
BRS RMM
λ = 3
The University of Athens 20
Discussion (1/3)Discussion (1/3)
Pseudospoofing & Shilling AttacksPseudospoofing & Shilling AttacksSmooth out abrupt changesSmooth out abrupt changesChallenge-response handshakeChallenge-response handshakeBind with real-world identitiesBind with real-world identities
Man-in-the-middleMan-in-the-middleMessage Authentication/Integrity Check Message Authentication/Integrity Check
RVM RVM anonymityanonymity impersonationimpersonation failurefailure
The University of Athens 21
Discussion (2/3)Discussion (2/3)
Number and Duration of EpochsNumber and Duration of Epochs
Average frequency Average frequency ffx x of download requests in popular peersof download requests in popular peers
Network population Network population NN
Space Overhead of RVMSpace Overhead of RVM
λλ xx NNpp ((NNpp:average # of peers assigned to a RVM):average # of peers assigned to a RVM)
The University of Athens 22
Discussion (3/3)Discussion (3/3)
Communication Cost
(k: average # of neighboring nodes, h: max # of hops)
More efficient solutions:
Select kr most reputable neighbors
Use a P2P routing protocol
(e.g. Chord with O(logN) messages, N: network population)
Anonymity cost for RVMs
(e.g. Tarzan with O(N) messages)
2h
k