PeerReview Analysis and Re-evaluation for Accountability in Distributed Systems or Networks

Accountability implies that any entity should be held responsible for its own specific action or behavior so that the entity is part of a larger chain of accountability. PeerReview [1] is designed as a practical system that provides accountability for distributed systems. A key assumption in PeerReview is that a message sent from one correct node to another will be eventually received. In the real world, however, message loss is commonplace and unavoidable due to the dynamics and uncertainties of the current Internet, and it prevents a message from always reaching its destination. Beginning with this point, we have comprehensively analyzed the behavior of PeerReview with the assumption that, eventually, a message will probably be lost. We have shown that PeerReview would be unable to maintain its completeness and accuracy under such a circumstance. We present six possible errors and the causes from which they originate. We re-evaluated PeerReview with two newly defined metrics, Node Accountability and System Accountability, which are employed to assess the degree of system accountability. Simulation results show that message loss decreases the performance of PeerReview in terms of both metrics.

[1]  Leslie Lamport,et al.  The Byzantine Generals Problem , 1982, TOPL.

[2]  John M. Boone,et al.  INTEGRITY-ORIENTED CONTROL OBJECTIVES: PROPOSED REVISIONS TO THE TRUSTED COMPUTER SYSTEM EVALUATION CRITERIA (TCSEC), DoD 5200.28-STD , 1991 .

[3]  Vern Paxson,et al.  End-to-end Internet packet dynamics , 1997, SIGCOMM '97.

[4]  Miguel Castro,et al.  Practical byzantine fault tolerance and proactive recovery , 2002, TOCS.

[5]  Jeffrey S. Chase,et al.  Trust but verify: accountability for network services , 2004, EW 11.

[6]  Bharat B. Madan,et al.  A method for modeling and quantifying the security attributes of intrusion tolerant systems , 2004, Perform. Evaluation.

[7]  Miguel Castro,et al.  Proceedings of the 11th workshop on ACM SIGOPS European workshop , 2004 .

[8]  Jeffrey S. Chase,et al.  The role of accountability in dependable distributed systems , 2005 .

[9]  Svein J. Knapskog,et al.  A Game-Theoretic Approach to Stochastic Security and Dependability Evaluation , 2006, 2006 2nd IEEE International Symposium on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Computing.

[10]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Holding the Internet Accountable , 2007, HotNets.

[11]  Jeffrey S. Chase,et al.  Strong accountability for network storage , 2007, TOS.

[12]  Andreas Haeberlen,et al.  PeerReview: practical accountability for distributed systems , 2007, SOSP.

[13]  Katerina J. Argyraki,et al.  Loss and Delay Accountability for the Internet , 2007, 2007 IEEE International Conference on Network Protocols.

[14]  P. Reiher,et al.  Building accountability into the future Internet , 2008, 2008 4th Workshop on Secure Network Protocols.

[15]  Nick Feamster,et al.  Accountable internet protocol (aip) , 2008, SIGCOMM '08.

[16]  Ruth Breu,et al.  Quantitative Assessment of Enterprise Security System , 2008, 2008 Third International Conference on Availability, Reliability and Security.

[17]  Yang Xiao Accountability for wireless LANs, ad hoc networks, and wireless mesh networks , 2008, IEEE Communications Magazine.

[18]  Yang Xiao Flow-net methodology for accountability in wireless networks , 2009, IEEE Network.

[19]  Sudhir Aggarwal,et al.  Incorporating accountability into internet email , 2009, SAC '09.

[20]  Andreas Haeberlen,et al.  CSAR: A Practical and Provable Technique to Make Randomized Systems Accountable , 2009, NDSS.

[21]  Jennifer Rexford,et al.  Accountability in hosted virtual networks , 2009, VISA '09.

[22]  Toby Moncaster,et al.  Re-ECN: Adding Accountability for Causing Congestion to TCP/IP , 2010 .