-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
I hope this is useful:
I'm in the Security Group of the Computer Laboratory at the University
of Cambridge. Ben Laurie (yes, that Ben Laurie) and I have recently
been doing some sums on proof-of-work / client puzzles / hashcash
methods of imposing economic constraints upon the sending of spam...
Ben wanted to know how big a proof was needed for a practical scheme
he was considering -- and I told him it wasn't going to work. We then
carefully worked through all the calculations, using the best data
that we could obtain -- and we did indeed come to the conclusion that
proof-of-work is not a viable proposal :(
The paper we wrote about this was presented last week in Minneapolis
at the (academic, peer-reviewed) "Third Annual Workshop on Economics
and Information Security" (WEAS04)
We've doubtless duplicated the figures on the back of many an
envelope, but it is clearly useful to have the analysis in the formal
literature where our assumptions and figures can be considered and
possibly even improved upon by others.
Paper:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/proofwork.pdf
Slides from talk:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/talks/040514-ProofWork.pdf
Abstract:
A frequently proposed method of reducing unsolicited bulk email
("spam") is for senders to pay for each email they send. Proof-
of-work schemes avoid charging real money by requiring senders to
demonstrate that they have expended processing time in solving a
cryptographic puzzle. We attempt to determine how difficult that
puzzle should be so as to be effective in preventing spam. We
analyse this both from an economic perspective, "how can we stop
it being cost-effective to send spam", and from a security
perspective, "spammers can access insecure end-user machines and
will steal processing cycles to solve puzzles". Both analyses
lead to similar values of puzzle difficulty. Unfortunately, real-
world data from a large ISP shows that these difficulty levels
would mean that significant numbers of senders of legitimate
email would be unable to continue their current levels of
activity. We conclude that proof-of-work will not be a solution
to the problem of spam.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
For the avoidance of doubt, the type of scheme we believe we have
shown is not viable is one where all email (except "mailing list"
email) carries a "proof-of-work" along with it.
It may be that it is still sensible to consider composite schemes
where puzzles are only solved per sending host or where receivers use
puzzles to admit senders into whitelists...
... however, we would consider it incumbent on any proposer of such a
scheme to do similar calculations to ours before putting it forward.
[ off-topic for here, but we also suspect that a number of proof-
of-work schemes in peer-to-peer networks would fall to our type
of real-world analysis :( people tend to use client puzzles as a
kind of "magic fairy dust" to scatter over systems when they get
stuck in their design :( ]
- --
richard Richard Clayton
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary
safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: PGPsdk version 1.7.1
iQA/AwUBQKk5khfnRQV/feRLEQIcyACcCrGw1ZZIHV+qP7AZy9M8XJU4920AnjcW
M35kvXsj8cv/ujtY9xpf79av
=wEUV
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Asrg mailing list
Asrg@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/asrg
--- end forwarded text
--- end forwarded text
--
-----------------
R. A. Hettinga