> > Malicious peers will be smart and they can perform different types of > attacks. > Keep in main that the goal is to check the efficiency of STrPe and > STrPe-DS against those type of attacks.
The first step is to implement STrPe. I think that the malicious peer which will just send poisoned chunk (000..00) is enough for evaluating STrPe. (am I right?) We have to agree about what experiments (number of malicious peers, type of > attacks, etc) are needed to check the results and your code. > It's ok. I will prepare plan asap. It is rare the system go down for 5-10 sec. What is the environment you are > checking it? > MacOS (yosemite); I run splitter, monitor and peer. When system is going to down, the vlc out the error messages like *can't decode timestamp. But it occurs from time to time, ie today morning all was ok =) And I just check it again, all was ok. Thanks! 2015-05-25 12:39 GMT+05:00 L.G.Casado <[email protected]>: > Dear all, mostly Ilshat, > > Following your proposal, please take into account the paper we sent to you. > Malicious peers will be smart and they can perform different types of > attacks. > > Keep in main that the goal is to check the efficiency of STrPe and > STrPe-DS against those type of attacks. > We have to agree about what experiments (number of malicious peers, type > of attacks, etc) are needed to check the results and your code. > It is rare the system go down for 5-10 sec. What is the environment you > are checking it? > > Best, > > Leo > > > El lun, 25-05-2015 a las 10:00 +0500, Ilshat Shakirov escribió: > > Hello!, > > Would you mind writting a brief description of what you've done to the > date so we can see in which direction to go from here? > > Ok, but I am really did nothing serious. I have just implemented the > malicious peer (the same way as lossy peer, I have replaced team_socket in > peer). Now I am testing it, but I have some issues with local team (the > monitor peer plays stream normally for first 5-10 secs, and then there are > lost chunks and stream begins to freeze, and etc.; it's happening without > malicious peer =)). > > > I want to do things in the same order as it described in my proposal > <http://www.google-melange.com/gsoc/proposal/review/student/google/gsoc2015/dshaman92/5629499534213120>. > Is it right? > > > You can see my progress in github <https://github.com/ishakirov/p2psp>; > Im working with fork of p2psp; Im using git-flow, so I develop new feature > in new branch and then merge master and new-feature-branch. Also I will > report my progress in blog <http://shakirov-dev.blogspot.ru/>, I will try > to do it every Sunday. > > > 2015-05-25 0:00 GMT+05:00 Juan Álvaro Muñoz Naranjo < > [email protected]>: > > Hi Ilshat, > > > thanks to you for taking this project. As you know the GSoC officially > starts tomorrow (Monday). Would you mind writting a brief description of > what you've done to the date so we can see in which direction to go from > here? > > > Thanks, > > > Juan > > > 2015-05-24 1:12 GMT+02:00 Cristóbal Medina López < > [email protected]>: > > Hi Ilshat, > > > El sáb., 23 may. 2015 a las 19:14, Ilshat Shakirov (< > [email protected]>) escribió: > > Hello!, > > > Sorry for the delay in the response and many thanks for accepting my > project =) > > > > > No problem, in fact, the GSoC starts officially the next monday :-) > > > > > Currently, I am experimenting with malicious peer (here is my variant > of malicious peer: > https://github.com/P2PSP/p2psp/compare/master...ishakirov:malicious_peer). > > Is it right way to implement malicious peer? I have changed the > peer.py and peer_dbs.py files (added new constant, and added condition for > the sending chunks to other peers). Also, I see the lossy socket > implementation, may be I must do smth like this? > > > > The idea is to use import from other class and overwrite the method if > necessary. You can see an example in the lossy_peer.py file. In fact, each > set of rules use an import class from another one. You can take a look in > the current sets of rules implemented in order to understand it. > > > > > > Also, I am experiencing some problems with public splitter > (150.214.150.68). There is lost chunks and 4 banned peers. May be it is > consequence of my experiments, > > > > There is a monitor peer in the same host that the splitter. So the > splitter should expel to the "banned peers" due to the claims of the > monitor peer. > > > > but I dont know exactly, so I need some help. > > > > You can experiment running a team in localhost. > > > > > > Thanks in advance! > > > > Regards! > > > > > -- > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~p2psp > Post to : [email protected] > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~p2psp > More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp > > > > > >
-- Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~p2psp Post to : [email protected] Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~p2psp More help : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
