An analysis of social network-based Sybil defenses

Recently, there has been much excitement in the research community over using social networks to mitigate multiple identity, or Sybil, attacks. A number of schemes have been proposed, but they differ greatly in the algorithms they use and in the networks upon which they are evaluated. As a result, the research community lacks a clear understanding of how these schemes compare against each other, how well they would work on real-world social networks with different structural properties, or whether there exist other (potentially better) ways of Sybil defense. In this paper, we show that, despite their considerable differences, existing Sybil defense schemes work by detecting local communities (i.e., clusters of nodes more tightly knit than the rest of the graph) around a trusted node. Our finding has important implications for both existing and future designs of Sybil defense schemes. First, we show that there is an opportunity to leverage the substantial amount of prior work on general community detection algorithms in order to defend against Sybils. Second, our analysis reveals the fundamental limits of current social network-based Sybil defenses: We demonstrate that networks with well-defined community structure are inherently more vulnerable to Sybil attacks, and that, in such networks, Sybils can carefully target their links in order make their attacks more effective.

[1]  M. Mitzenmacher,et al.  Probability and Computing: Chernoff Bounds , 2005 .

[2]  A Díaz-Guilera,et al.  Self-similar community structure in a network of human interactions. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[3]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Statistical properties of community structure in large social and information networks , 2008, WWW.

[4]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Signed networks in social media , 2010, CHI.

[5]  Michael Kaminsky,et al.  SybilGuard: defending against sybil attacks via social networks , 2006, SIGCOMM.

[6]  Feng Luo,et al.  Exploring Local Community Structures in Large Networks , 2006, 2006 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence (WI 2006 Main Conference Proceedings)(WI'06).

[7]  Aziz Mohaisen,et al.  Measuring the mixing time of social graphs , 2010, IMC '10.

[8]  Feng Xiao,et al.  SybilLimit: A Near-Optimal Social Network Defense Against Sybil Attacks , 2010, IEEE/ACM Trans. Netw..

[9]  Santo Fortunato,et al.  Community detection in graphs , 2009, ArXiv.

[10]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  Ostra: Leveraging Trust to Thwart Unwanted Communication , 2008, NSDI.

[11]  Ryan Shaun Joazeiro de Baker,et al.  Case studies in the use of ROC curve analysis for sensor-based estimates in human computer interaction , 2005, Graphics Interface.

[12]  Joydeep Ghosh,et al.  Cluster Ensembles A Knowledge Reuse Framework for Combining Partitionings , 2002, AAAI/IAAI.

[13]  Christos Faloutsos,et al.  Graph evolution: Densification and shrinking diameters , 2006, TKDD.

[14]  Jure Leskovec,et al.  Empirical comparison of algorithms for network community detection , 2010, WWW '10.

[15]  Chandra Prakash,et al.  SybilInfer: Detecting Sybil Nodes using Social Networks , 2011 .

[16]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  You are who you know: inferring user profiles in online social networks , 2010, WSDM '10.

[17]  Albert,et al.  Emergence of scaling in random networks , 1999, Science.

[18]  Daniele Quercia,et al.  Sybil Attacks Against Mobile Users: Friends and Foes to the Rescue , 2010, 2010 Proceedings IEEE INFOCOM.

[19]  Chris Lesniewski-Laas,et al.  A Sybil-proof one-hop DHT , 2008, SocialNets '08.

[20]  James P. Bagrow Evaluating local community methods in networks , 2007, 0706.3880.

[21]  Ben Y. Zhao,et al.  User interactions in social networks and their implications , 2009, EuroSys '09.

[22]  Krishna P. Gummadi,et al.  On the evolution of user interaction in Facebook , 2009, WOSN '09.

[23]  M E J Newman,et al.  Fast algorithm for detecting community structure in networks. , 2003, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[24]  M. Newman,et al.  The structure of scientific collaboration networks. , 2000, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

[25]  Leyla Bilge,et al.  All your contacts are belong to us: automated identity theft attacks on social networks , 2009, WWW '09.

[26]  M. Frans Kaashoek,et al.  Whanau: A Sybil-proof Distributed Hash Table , 2010, NSDI.

[27]  A. Clauset Finding local community structure in networks. , 2005, Physical review. E, Statistical, nonlinear, and soft matter physics.

[28]  Lakshminarayanan Subramanian,et al.  Sybil-Resilient Online Content Voting , 2009, NSDI.

[29]  Shishir Nagaraja,et al.  Anonymity in the Wild: Mixes on Unstructured Networks , 2007, Privacy Enhancing Technologies.

[30]  Kevin J. Lang,et al.  Communities from seed sets , 2006, WWW '06.

[31]  John R. Douceur,et al.  The Sybil Attack , 2002, IPTPS.

[32]  Jon M. Kleinberg,et al.  The small-world phenomenon: an algorithmic perspective , 2000, STOC '00.