News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on IPFS Pubsub: Distributed named pubsub channels based in the IPFS Cloud. Parent comment

Re:IPFS Pubsub: Distributed named pubsub channels based in t... by KirinDave on Friday December 08, 2017 @03:17PM (#15881660)
The real challenge to this is negotiating pinning without it being exploitable by third parties.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPFS Pubsub: Distributed named pubsub channels based in t... by Xeoncross on Friday December 08, 2017 @03:31PM (#15881781)
Is there where a third party node can spoof (or lie about) the content belonging to a pin to clients that ask it?
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPFS Pubsub: Distributed named pubsub channels based in t... by Crespyl on Friday December 08, 2017 @03:47PM (#15881904)
Since IPFS is based on content addressing, if a node tries to spoof a piece of content, any peers trying to fetch from the malicious node will immediately see that the content provided does not match the desired hash.

I'm not sure how peers handle that situation, I'd assume it'd be treated like wire corruption (retry) or give up and try to fetch from a different peer.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPFS Pubsub: Distributed named pubsub channels based in t... by cobookman on Friday December 08, 2017 @11:34PM (#15884311)
But that doesn't stop ddos attacks.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPFS Pubsub: Distributed named pubsub channels based in t... by brokenmachine on Monday December 11, 2017 @07:42PM (#15902164)
True, but a ddos also doesn't exactly mean the content is "exploitable".

I presume future clients would block nodes that share false content (if clients don't already).

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:IPFS Pubsub: Distributed named pubsub channels based in t... by lgierth on Friday December 08, 2017 @04:26PM (#15882186)
Pins are something that's per-node, and whether a node has a specific piece of content pinned is not visible publicly (only that it's providing the content).
[ Parent | on HN ]