Peer Pressure: Distributed Recovery from Attacks in Peer-to-Peer Systems

  • Pedram Keyani
  • Brian Larson
  • Muthukumar Senthil
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2376)


Peer-to-peer systems such as Gnutella are resilient to failures at a single point in the network because of their decentralized nature. However an attack resulting in the removal of a small percentage of highly connected nodes could cripple such systems. We believe that distributed attack recovery is not simply a reactive process but requires proactive measures by the nodes in the system. We propose a distributed recovery method, where clients proactively detect attacks by monitoring the rate at which their first and second-degree neighbors leave the network and reconfigure themselves to form a topology that is more resilient to attacks when one has been detected. This topology is created and maintained through a new type of node discovery mechanism that is used during normal network operations. The recovery method is able to reconnect the network and deal with any ongoing attacks once one has started.


Overlay Network Recovery Method Attack Detection Malicious Attack Large Connected Component 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    W. Aiello, F. Chung, and L Lu. “A Random Graph Model for Massive Graphs.” Symposium of Theory of Computing, 2000.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. Albert, H. Jeong, and A. Barabási, “Error and attack tolerance in complex networks,” Nature 406Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Barabási and R. Albert, “Emergence of scaling in random networks,” Science, 286Google Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    F. Buckley and F. Harary, Distance in Graphs. Addison-Wesley, New York, 1990.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. 6., Gnutella Measurement Project
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    C. Faloutsos, M. Faloutsos and P. Faloutsos, “On power-law relationships of the Internet Topology,” Proc. of ACM SIGCOMM, Aug. 1999.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    A. Medina, I. Matta and J. Byers, “On the Origin of Power Laws in Internet Topologies,” ACM Computer Communication Review, vol. 30, no. 2, Apr. 2000Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Moore, G. Voelker, and S. Savage, “Inferring Internet Denial-of-Service Activity,” in Proceedings of the 2001 USENIX Security Symposium.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S. Saroiu, P. Krishna Gummadi, and S. Gribble, “A measurement study of peer-to-peer file sharing systems,” Technical Report UW-CSE-01-06-02, University of Washington, June 2001.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
  14. 14.
    R. Cohen, K. Erez, D. ben-Avraham and S. Havlin, “Breakdown of the Internet under intentional attack,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 86,3682 (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    B. Yang and H. Garcia-Molina, “Comparing hybrid peer-to-peer systems,” In Proceedings of the 27th International Conference on Very Large Databases, September 2001.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    M. Ripeanu, I. Foster and A. Iamnitchi, “Mapping the Gnutella Network: Properties of Large-Scale Peer-to-Peer Systems and Implications for System”, IEEE Internet Computing Journal special issue on peer-to-peer networking, vol. 6(1) 2002.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    B. Y. Zhao, J. D. Kubiatowicz, and A. D. Joseph, “Tapestry: An infrastructure for fault-resilient wide-area location and routing”, Technical Report U. C. Berkeley, April 2001.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    A. Rowstone, P. Druschel, “Pastry: Scalable, distributed object location and routing for large-scale peer-to-peer systems”, in Middleware, 2001Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedram Keyani
    • 1
  • Brian Larson
    • 1
  • Muthukumar Senthil
    • 1
  1. 1.Computer Science DepartmentStanford UniversityStanford

Personalised recommendations