SAFE Network concerns from an old employee

[polpolrene]

@vtnerd

That single proxy could generate forged messages easily and the client would not be able to tell even if it knew the prefix of the group it wanted (because it could be easily generated by the malicious proxy node).

In this case you still can’t do a thing. Yes, you fooled someone in a fake network as a client connected over 1 proxy (will be several in the future). So now I’m connected to your false node, whats’next? You still can’t steal my coins, you can’t know my login details. You only prevented me from using SAFE. Not a good thing, but as no private key or log in detail ever leaves my computer not a big deal. Yes, you might see I request chunk “ABC” and maybe look that chunk up in a list. And when I log in to the network you could forward to the real network and provide me my personal files but what’s the purpose of that? You can’t make a dime doing it. it actually cost you money and resources.

@vtnerd

The client could connect to multiple proxy nodes in an attempt to collect multiple responses.

Yes, this will be the case. Like 4 proxies into the network. You even end up in the same group using these proxies (relay_nodes). So if 1 real_node is evil it would be exposed quite fast as the other 3 nodes connect you to some client_managers and the evil one is not as it doesn’t have a clue about the network.

@vtnerd

The client could connect to multiple proxy nodes in an attempt to collect multiple responses. If it gets different results, which one does it trust? The “closest” nodes (previous attempt) is probably not a good idea.

You can always bootstrap using the Maidsafe Bootstrap node. Their public key is in the client. And you could create a fake account and become my “close nodes” in a forged network, but that doesn’t mean you have any client info about me. The close nodes in the real network do. They even know I have some Safecoin left to PUT some data. A group of fake nodes can’t know that info.

@vtnerd

You are absolutely correct. I was speaking to the current implementation specifically. I stated this earlier, my first thought (thinking like an attacker) would be finding a way to generate a key I wanted, then find a way to get nodes in a position to forge a network join. I would need more detailed information than this diagram though.

Even in the current implementation there is a “GetNetworkName (request)”. I’ve seen it come by in my Vault. So again, feel free to do as much POW as you want. But you can’t create or insert your own address in the network and become that address.

@vtnerd

But one thing to think about - the number of groups is directly related to the size of the network and the target for the group size. How many groups are expected? How difficult would it be for an attacker to take 50 machines and slowly attempt rejoins until they are in the same group? Its going to be easier with a small network.

This is a whole different discussion and it actually makes my point again of not being able to attack the network with POW . I started this topic some days ago and it addresses that subject. It’s nothing new as it came up several times already and the devs are thinking about it as well. No surprise as this could be a weakness for SAFE if not addressed. But it get’s addressed.