> Should the DoS protection auto-disable if the node has less than a minimum > number of connections? The idea being that if our node seems to be kicking > everybody off the roster maybe there is something wrong with the > protections.
Darn good question. If the protection fails, would it be better for it to 'fail hard', leaving people complaining "bitcoin won't stay connected!" Or fail soft, so you at least have a couple of connections. I think fail hard is better-- we'll immediately know about the problem, and can fix it. Fail soft makes me nervous because I think that would make it more likely a bug splits the network (and, therefore, the blockchain). > It would be nice if the node sent a message to the banned peer with a code > indicating the reason for the ban If I think you're trying to DoS me, why would I be nice to you? I think response messages would just give an attacker another potential attack vector, and it is clear from the debug.log what triggers a ban. > Should sending lots of messages that don't pass the protocol-level checksum > test be a bannable offense? Or generally sending garbage data? Good question. Anybody see a reason not to? How much tolerance (if any) should there be for sending garbage data (I assume the lower-level network stack almost never garbles data, is that a good assumption)? -- -- Gavin Andresen ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Doing More with Less: The Next Generation Virtual Desktop What are the key obstacles that have prevented many mid-market businesses from deploying virtual desktops? How do next-generation virtual desktops provide companies an easier-to-deploy, easier-to-manage and more affordable virtual desktop model.http://www.accelacomm.com/jaw/sfnl/114/51426474/ _______________________________________________ Bitcoin-development mailing list Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
