[p2p-hackers] P2P file storage systems
zooko at zooko.com
Mon Feb 21 14:04:55 PST 2011
Dear Michael Militzer:
Thanks for your ideas about secure P2P storage, and thanks for your
interest in Tahoe-LAFS in particular.
Here are a couple of quick responses. I'm an architect and developer
On Sun, Feb 20, 2011 at 7:45 AM, Michael Militzer <michael at xvid.org> wrote:
> While I don't agree that we should really drop erasure
> coding, I however like your approach to keep things simple.
I also like that about Octavia. I'd like to see Octavia developed and
used more so I can learn more about the consequences of its
Since it is so simple it should be relatively easy for a volunteer to
implement it or to contribute part of an implementation of it.
Somebody out there do that! :-)
> Also today
> indeed bandwidth should be the more precious resource in a P2P system
> compared to storage, which is available in abundance to the home user.
> So a simple replication strategy might not be so bad after all...
Replication costs more bandwidth on upload than erasure coding does
(for a similar degree of fault-tolerance) as well as costing more
> If I understood it right, Tahoe clients simply keep a connection with each
> storage node in a storage cluster.
That's right, We have kicked around some ideas about how to do a more
scalable-DHT-like routing instead of keeping a connection open from
each client to each server, but even if we had such a thing Tahoe-LAFS
grids would still be comprised exclusively of servers whose owners
gave you some reason to believe that they were reliable. Scalable
routing a la DHT wouldn't be sufficient to allow you to safely rely on
strangers for storage, for various reasons that you touched on next:
> So if the DHT is deployed on untrusted nodes we need to care about things
> like admission control, sybil attack, routing and index poisening, eclipse
> attack and so on.
Hm, but then you say something that I don't quite follow:
> - It may need further modification to be safely usable in a network
> comprised of untrusted nodes (sybils, DHT robustness against denial of
> service attacks, ...)
I think the word "trust" often causes confusion, because it bundles
together a lot of concepts into one word. I find that rephrasing
things in terms of "reliance" often makes things clearer.
So: Tahoe-LAFS users absolutely do *not* rely on the storage servers
for confidentiality and integrity. Confidentiality and integrity are
guaranteed by the user's client software, using math (cryptography).
Even if *all* of the storage servers that you are using turn out to be
controlled by a single malicious entity who will stop at nothing to
harm you, this doesn't threaten the confidentiality of the data in
your files nor its integrity.
But, Tahoe-LAFS users *do* rely on the storage servers for the
longevity and availability of their data. If the malicious entity that
controls all the servers decides to delete all of the ciphertext that
they are holding for you, then no mathematical magic will help you get
the data back. :-)
That is why Tahoe-LAFS users typically limit the set of storage
servers that they will entrust their ciphertext. They choose only
servers which are operated by friends of theirs, or by a company that
they pay for service, or servers operated by members of a group that
has collectively agreed to trade storage for storage with each other.
I wrote more on this topic in a letter to the tahoe-dev mailing list last night:
"BitTorrent for storage" is a bad idea
> - To guarantee persistence in a P2P network of untrusted and unreliable
> nodes Tahoe's information dispersal strategy needs be adapted. The degree
> of redundancy must be increased (n/k) but just as well the number of
> erasure coded fragments (k) too for storage efficiency.
Why do you think these parameters would need to be changed?
> I don't know if
> this is practically doable within Tahoe's current structure (galois-field
> based Reed-Solomon coding is slow with large k and n) or what other side
> effects this may have (size of the Merkle trees?).
It is plenty efficient for k and n up to about 256. It is also
probably efficient enough for k and n up to about 2^16, although I'm
skeptical that anyone actually needs k and n that size.
There is a Merkle Tree in Tahoe-LAFS which is computed over the
identifiers of the n shares, so that Merkle Tree would grow in size as
n grew. However that is a small cost that probably wouldn't need much
if any optimization.
> - Censorship-resistance obviously also depends on availability and data
> persistence guarantees. If directed (or undirected) denial of service
> attacks are possible on the DHT, the system cannot said to be censorship-
Hm, so if I understand correctly, Tahoe-LAFS currently doesn't have
*scalability* in terms of the number of servers, but it does have
nearly optimal *censorship resistance* at a given scale. For example,
suppose there are 200 servers which are all joined in the conspiracy
to host a repository of Free and Open Source Software, and some evil
attacker is expending resources attempting to disrupt that hosting or
deny users access to it. If those 200 servers are organized into a
traditional scalable DHT like Chord, then a client would have
approximately a logarithmic number of connections to servers, say to
perhaps eight of them. An attacker who wants to deny that client
access to the Free and Open Source software repository would have to
take down only eight servers or prevent the client from establishing
working connections to them, right? Whereas with a full bipartite
graph topology like Tahoe-LAFS the attacker would have to take down or
deny access to a substantial constant fraction of all 200 of them
(depending on the ratio of k to n).
(Note: is assuming that the erasure coding parameter n is turned up to
200, which is already supported in Tahoe-LAFS -- you can configure it
in the tahoe.cfg configuration file.)
(Note: this is about attacking the storage layer, not the introduction
layer. Those are separate in Tahoe-LAFS and while the latter does need
some work, it is probably easier to defend the introduction layer than
the storage layer since introducers are stateless and have minimal
ability to do damage if they act maliciously. Multiple redundant
introducers were implemented by MO Faruque Sarker as part of the
Google Summer of Code 2010 but it hasn't been merged into trunk yet.
You can help! We need code-review, testing, documentation, etc.
http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/68 :-) )
> And there are other, less-obvious censorship risks too: If a third-party
> can force specific node owners (e.g. by court order) to shut down their
> storage nodes then certain data can become unavailable in the system.
You may be interested in Tahoe-LAFS-over-Tor and Tahoe-LAFS-over-i2p.
:-) I'm sure both of those projects would be grateful for bug reports,
p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers at lists.zooko.com
----- End forwarded message -----
Eugen* Leitl <a href="http://leitl.org">leitl</a> http://leitl.org
ICBM: 48.07100, 11.36820 http://www.ativel.com http://postbiota.org
8B29F6BE: 099D 78BA 2FD3 B014 B08A 7779 75B0 2443 8B29 F6BE
More information about the cypherpunks-legacy