12 ms·

The only universal way IMHO, is to associate a small cost to every internet request. The cost has to be as small as possible, but it has to be there for million

The only universal way IMHO, is to associate a small cost to every internet request. The cost has to be as small as possible, but it has to be there for million/billion/trillion requests to add up the cost and make it uneconomical to continue the attack past some point. It is the same problem with email spam. What's stopping someone from sending billions of spam mails? If we suppose that: a blockchain exists which is fast enough, cheap enough, and spread out enough on the globe (to mitigate latency), then there is no reason, for a tcp packet to not carry with it a small money transaction, in the order of a millionth of a cent. Information gets served back, only when the transaction is confirmed. In that way, any request with no transaction gets discarded, and only requests with a small cost pass through. Suddenly by sending requests one after another and no end in sight, DDoS attacks and mail spam start to cost money. It is the serving of request that makes DDoS attacks and mail spam to be effective. The problem however, is that no blockchain is fast enough and cheap enough as of today. But there will be one in a handful of years.

jimbobthrowawy 2y ago
That would assume the cost is borne by the attacker, and not every smart thermostat in their botnet.
0xcde4c3db 2y ago
Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it presupposes some "sweet spot" price (negligible for legitimate users, yet prohibitive for abusers) that has never been shown to exist in reality. (also, you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the payment processing / firewall mechanism)
- emporas 2y ago
  > Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. These ideas indeed exist for decades. > The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it presupposes some "sweet spot" price (negligible for legitimate users, yet prohibitive for abusers) that has never been shown to exist in reality. Advances in technology, software and hardware, make it easier and easier for that sweet spot to exist. That sweet spot, didn't exist in the past, certainly, but we are close right now. One example that i think is useful here, is aluminum cans for fizzy drinks. Aluminum, a strong metal compared to cardboard or plastic or glass, is better at withstanding pressurized gases without exploding. The downside, is that it's more expensive. When manufacturing prices dropped down a lot, then it was feasible to drink half a liter of liquid and just throw away the metal. Aluminum still not free though, but the small price did worth it. Huge waste of energy as well to smelt all that metal and throw it away after 10 minutes of drinking, but it is economically viable. One could manufacture Titanium cans, and drink even more fizzy drinks. But that's not economically viable as of today. > you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the payment processing / firewall mechanism. Yes, the problem is moved elsewhere, that's the weak link in the scheme i described. The thing is that a flood of transactions still costs money. Blockchains cannot be flooded just with requests, they have to be flooded by transactions. Take a look at the article [1] which outlines some ideas. I don't agree with a lot of things in there, but it states the problem and gives some numbers. The theory when it comes to blockchain deterring DDoS attacks (and other kind of attacks), is that there are not bad guys in general, just rational economic actors who use dirty tricks. When a dirty trick starts to cost money, and profit disappears from an attack, then the rational economic actor will stop the attack. The bad guy will resume the attack regardless of profit, but that's one of the axioms of the theory, that there are no bad guys. [1] https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-an-increasing-problem-for-blockchains/ https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-an-inc...
Analemma_ 2y ago
This wouldn’t fix anything. Most DDoS attacks today are amplification attacks, e.g. “I sent 10 bytes to this unpatched NTP server and as a result it sends 500 kb to this target server., so in your scheme the costs would not be borne by the attacker.

jimbobthrowawy 2y ago

That would assume the cost is borne by the attacker, and not every smart thermostat in their botnet.

0xcde4c3db 2y ago

Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it presupposes some "sweet spot" price (negligible for legitimate users, yet prohibitive for abusers) that has never been shown to exist in reality. (also, you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the payment processing / firewall mechanism)

emporas 2y ago
> Similar systems were proposed in the late '90s/early 2000s (hashcash/micropayments) to combat spam. These ideas indeed exist for decades. > The big problem isn't a technological one, it's that it presupposes some "sweet spot" price (negligible for legitimate users, yet prohibitive for abusers) that has never been shown to exist in reality. Advances in technology, software and hardware, make it easier and easier for that sweet spot to exist. That sweet spot, didn't exist in the past, certainly, but we are close right now. One example that i think is useful here, is aluminum cans for fizzy drinks. Aluminum, a strong metal compared to cardboard or plastic or glass, is better at withstanding pressurized gases without exploding. The downside, is that it's more expensive. When manufacturing prices dropped down a lot, then it was feasible to drink half a liter of liquid and just throw away the metal. Aluminum still not free though, but the small price did worth it. Huge waste of energy as well to smelt all that metal and throw it away after 10 minutes of drinking, but it is economically viable. One could manufacture Titanium cans, and drink even more fizzy drinks. But that's not economically viable as of today. > you're arguably just moving the problem to DDoSing the payment processing / firewall mechanism. Yes, the problem is moved elsewhere, that's the weak link in the scheme i described. The thing is that a flood of transactions still costs money. Blockchains cannot be flooded just with requests, they have to be flooded by transactions. Take a look at the article [1] which outlines some ideas. I don't agree with a lot of things in there, but it states the problem and gives some numbers. The theory when it comes to blockchain deterring DDoS attacks (and other kind of attacks), is that there are not bad guys in general, just rational economic actors who use dirty tricks. When a dirty trick starts to cost money, and profit disappears from an attack, then the rational economic actor will stop the attack. The bad guy will resume the attack regardless of profit, but that's one of the axioms of the theory, that there are no bad guys. [1] https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-an-increasing-problem-for-blockchains/ https://www.dlnews.com/articles/defi/ddos-attacks-are-an-inc...

Analemma_ 2y ago

This wouldn’t fix anything. Most DDoS attacks today are amplification attacks, e.g. “I sent 10 bytes to this unpatched NTP server and as a result it sends 500 kb to this target server., so in your scheme the costs would not be borne by the attacker.