ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
How to spread adversarial nodes?: rotate!
Full text PdfPdf (287 KB)
Source Annual ACM Symposium on Theory of Computing archive
Proceedings of the thirty-seventh annual ACM symposium on Theory of computing table of contents
Baltimore, MD, USA
SESSION: Session 14B table of contents
Pages: 704 - 713  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISBN:1-58113-960-8
Author
Christian Scheideler  Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD
Sponsors
SIGACT: ACM Special Interest Group on Algorithms and Computation Theory
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 6,   Downloads (12 Months): 45,   Citation Count: 2
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1060590.1060694
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

In this paper we study the problem of how to keep a dynamic system of nodes well-mixed even under adversarial behavior. This problem is very important in the context of distributed systems.More specifically, we consider the following game: There are n white pebbles and ε n black pebbles for some fixed constant ε < 1. Initially, all of the white pebbles are laid down in a ring, and the adversary has all of the black pebbles in its bag. In each round, the adversary can look at the entire ring and can select to add a black pebble to the ring (if its bag is not empty) or to take any black pebble from the ring and put it back into its bag (i.e. we consider adaptive adversaries). However, the adversary cannot place a black pebble into any position it likes. This is handled by a join strategy to be specified by the system. The goal is to find an oblivious join strategy, i.e. a strategy that cannot distinguish between the white and black pebbles in the ring, that integrates the black pebbles into this ring and may do some further rearrangements so that for a polynomial number of rounds the adversary will not manage to include its black pebbles into the ring so that there is a sequence of s=Θ(log n) consecutive pebbles in which at least half of the pebbles are black. If this is achieved by the join strategy, it wins. Otherwise, the adversary wins.Of course, the brute-force strategy of rearranging all of the pebbles in the ring at random after each insertion of a black pebble will achieve the stated goal, with high probability, but this would be a very expensive strategy. The challenge is to find a join strategy that needs as little randomness and as few rearrangements as possible in order to win with high probability. In this paper, we present and analyze a very simple strategy called k-rotation that chooses k-1 existing positions uniformly at random in the ring, creates a new position uniformly at random in the ring, and then rotates the new pebble and the k-1 old pebbles along these positions. Interestingly, even if the adversary has just $s$ pebbles, it can still win for k=2. But the k-rotation rule wins with high probability for k=3 as long as ε<2/3, demonstrating that there is a sharp threshold for keeping pebbles in a sufficiently perturbed state.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
I. Abraham and D. Malkhi. Probabilistic quorums for dynamic systems. In Proc. of the 18th Annual Conference on Distributed Computing (DISC), 2003.
 
2
 
3
B. Awerbuch and C. Scheideler. Group Spreading: A protocol for provably secure distributed name service. In Proc. of the 31st International Colloquium on Automata, Languages and Programming (ICALP), 2004.
4
 
5
6
 
7
R. Canetti, R. Gennaro, A. Herzberg, and D. Naor Proactive security: Long-term protection against break-ins. RSA CryptoBytes, 3(1):1--8, 1997.
 
8
R. Canetti, S. Halevi, and A. Herzberg. Maintaining authenticated communication in the presence of break-ins. Journal of Cryptology, 13(1):61--106, 2000.
 
9
10
 
11
B. Chor, S. Goldwasser, S. Micali, and B. Awerbuch. Verifiable secret sharing and achieving simultaneity in the presence of faults. In Proc. of the 26th IEEE Symp. on Foundations of Computer Science (FOCS), pages 383--395, 1986.
 
12
C.S. Chow and A. Herzberg. Network randomization protocol: A proactive pseudo-random generator. In Proc. of the 5th USENIX UNIX Security Symposium, pages 55--63, 1995.
 
13
S. Crosby and D. Wallach. Denial of service via algorithmic complexity attacks. In Usenix Security, 2003.
 
14
P. Diaconis and M. Shahshahani. Generating a random permutation with random transpositions. Z. Wahrscheinlichkeitstheorie verw. Gebiete, 57:159--179, 1981.
 
15
 
16
 
17
 
18
19
 
20
21
 
22
23
 
24
U. Nadav and M. Naor. Fault tolerant storage in a dynamic environment. In Proc. of the 18th Annual Conference on Distributed Computing (DISC), 2004.
25
 
26
S. Nielson, S. Crosby, and D. Wallach. Kill the messenger: A taxonomy of rational attacks. In Proc. of the 4th International Workshop on Peer-to-Peer Systems (IPTPS), 2005.
27
 
28
29
 
30
C. Scheideler. Probabilistic Methods for Coordination Problems. HNI-Verlagsschriftenreihe 78, University of Paderborn, 2000. See also http://www.cs.jhu.edu/~scheideler.
 
31
 
32
33
 
34


Collaborative Colleagues:
Christian Scheideler: colleagues