1 / 24

A reputation-based trust management in peer-to-peer network systems

A reputation-based trust management in peer-to-peer network systems. Natalia Stakhanova, Sergio Ferrero, Johnny Wong, Ying Cai Department of Computer Science Iowa State University Ames, Iowa, USA. Outline. Peer-to-peer(P2P) networks overview Related work Proposed approach Experiments.

niveditha
Télécharger la présentation

A reputation-based trust management in peer-to-peer network systems

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. A reputation-based trust management in peer-to-peer network systems Natalia Stakhanova, Sergio Ferrero, Johnny Wong, Ying Cai Department of Computer Science Iowa State University Ames, Iowa, USA

  2. Outline • Peer-to-peer(P2P) networks overview • Related work • Proposed approach • Experiments

  3. Peer-to-peer (P2P)networks overview • P2P network - an overlay network of peers exchanging resources • common uses: file sharing, distributed computing, instant messaging • types: • Centralized (Napster) • Central indexing server contains information about all peer’s shared files • Decentralized (Gnutella, Freenet) • No central indexing, all peers are equal • Very popular • Hybrid (KaZaA, FastTrack) • Supernodes maintain index of files shared by their local peers

  4. P2P networks overview • Differences with traditional networks • Highly dynamic • autonomous peers • peers leave & join the network at any time • shared storage • Peers act as servers and clients

  5. P2P security threats • Denial-Of-Service attacks (DoS) • Decentralized P2P networks (Gnutella) • Virus distribution • Dishonest upload • Unauthorized access to information Goal: communication with trusted peers only

  6. Reputation-based approach • Natural mechanism for selecting trusted partners for communication • limit communication with unreliable peers • Most commonly used

  7. Related work • Centralized approaches • Debit-Credit Reputation Computation (DCRC) schema • Each peer tracks its own positive contribution using credit-debit mechanism • Reputation Computation Agent (RCA) periodically collects reputations • Decentralized approaches • NICE • Reputation is in form of cookies which express peer’s satisfaction about the transactions • If no cookie is found information is requested from • P2PRep • Reputation of the peer is based on other peer’s opinion • Request peer’s opinion on one’s reputation through polling protocol • Others • Daswani and Garcia-Molina’s schema for allocating resources fairly • Traffic management based on load-balancing policies • DoS attacks only

  8. Factors to be considered inreputation-based approach • Extensive traffic in Gnutella-like P2P network • Storage • central • local • Cooperation of other peers • System overhead

  9. Proposed approach • Reputation calculation is based the monitored activity of the connected peers • assessing the reputation of the peers before accepting traffic from other peers • if traffic is accepted update reputation of peers involved • Decentralized - reputations are stored and managed locally

  10. Contribution of our approach • Fully decentralized model • Requires no cooperation for reputation computation • On demand calculations • Lightweight – little system overhead

  11. Reputation calculation • Peer’s reputation indicates its contribution to the functioning of the P2P network • Four factors determining reputation: • Resource search • Resource upload • Resource download • Traffic extensiveness • Factors = actions • Bad actions • Good actions

  12. Resource search • willingness of a peer to forward traffic employ “trailer” as an addition to Query message • each peer that forwards the query adds its ID to the “trailer” • when peer forms QueryHit, it transfers a “trailer” from Query to QueryHit • peer originated a query receives QueryHit with “trailer” and updates reputations

  13. Resource upload • Indicates another peer’s interest in the shared resource • Completely uploaded file is a successful upload or good action

  14. Resource download • reflects the quality of the downloaded information • User decides if download was successful

  15. Traffic extensiveness • help to evaluate the traffic load coming from all connected peers • based on the average load • load is extensive if it exceeds the average amount by a user pre-defined threshold LcK- current load from peer k t - threshold n - number of connected peers lj - number of bytes sent by peer j n LcK > ∑ lj /n * t j=1

  16. Reputation calculation • Reputation value (trust score) isa percent of bad actions happened during a period of time Ri = BAi/ TAi Ri - trust score of peer i TAi - total number of considered actions for this peer i BAi - number of bad actions for this peer i

  17. Trust thresholds • indicate peer’s trust policy • percent of bad actions acceptable by the peer

  18. The correspondence between trust thresholds and trust score Example: • trust score falls in range of “average” -> x1–(Ri–x2) Computations: 30-(13-4) = 21 21% of peer’s traffic is accepted within period k. Given: Ri=13 x1=30 x2=4

  19. P2P client … Security Manager Reputation Manager Reputation repository Internet Connection Engine Experiments: system design • implementation were based on Phex version 0.9.5.54, a java-based Gnutella client

  20. Experimental setup • Network : 3 P2P clients set up as Ultrapeers • peer capacity - 20 queries per time period k • k=5 sec • Extensive traffic threshold t=1.7 • Trust thresholds • x1=20 • x2=5 • Initial reputation values for peers were set up manually

  21. Scenario 1 • Decrease of full reputation when peer P1 starts “acting” maliciously

  22. Scenario 2 • Reputation gain when peer starts “acting” properly

  23. Conclusion • We have proposed reputation-based trust management model for P2P networks • approach is decentralized • requires no peers’ cooperation • employs only on-demand calculations

  24. Future work • Enhancement of the model through • user profiling techniques • anomaly detection

More Related