Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

feat: ban peer unexpected response #5608

Conversation

SWvheerden
Copy link
Collaborator

Description

ban a peer if they sent an unexpected message

Motivation and Context

audit finding, TARI-002

@SWvheerden SWvheerden added the C-audit_fix fixes bug found in the audit label Aug 3, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 3, 2023

Test Results (CI)

1 188 tests   1 188 ✔️  12m 8s ⏱️
     37 suites         0 💤
       1 files           0

Results for commit 40b4d9f.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@ghpbot-tari-project ghpbot-tari-project added P-acks_required Process - Requires more ACKs or utACKs P-reviews_required Process - Requires a review from a lead maintainer to be merged labels Aug 3, 2023
@github-actions
Copy link

github-actions bot commented Aug 3, 2023

Test Results (Integration tests)

27 tests   27 ✔️  14m 18s ⏱️
11 suites    0 💤
  2 files      0

Results for commit 40b4d9f.

♻️ This comment has been updated with latest results.

@ghpbot-tari-project ghpbot-tari-project removed the P-reviews_required Process - Requires a review from a lead maintainer to be merged label Aug 9, 2023
Copy link
Contributor

@brianp brianp left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ack

I looked into the test failure. Just looks like a flaky test. Passes locally for me.

I do wonder if we should ban it so quickly though. If nodes are upgrading and a new message is being sent around old nodes could ignore it and run fine, but if they don't recognize it now they could ban perfectly good nodes. Maybe we need to have some kind of limiter, like repeated bad messages, or versioning of some kind?

@SWvheerden SWvheerden force-pushed the sw_ban_unexcpected_api_response branch from a46df95 to 40b4d9f Compare August 9, 2023 18:23
@SWvheerden SWvheerden merged commit 02494ae into tari-project:development Aug 9, 2023
13 checks passed
sdbondi added a commit to sdbondi/tari that referenced this pull request Aug 10, 2023
…-addresses

* development:
  chore: fix windows install (tari-project#5616)
  feat: ban peer unexpected response (tari-project#5608)
  fix!: add validator mr to mining hash (tari-project#5615)
  fix: check bytes remaining on monero blocks (tari-project#5610)
  fix: duplicate tari header in monero coinbase (tari-project#5604)
  fix: monero fork attack (tari-project#5603)
  feat: add mempool min fee (tari-project#5606)
  chore(tests): large block unit tests (tari-project#5599)
  fix: miner delay attack (tari-project#5582)
  fix: peer connection to stale nodes (tari-project#5579)
  ci(fix): artifact cleanup for diag-utils (tari-project#5613)
  ci(fix): update Windows installer for Minotari (tari-project#5614)
  chore: fixes monero build (tari-project#5612)
@SWvheerden SWvheerden deleted the sw_ban_unexcpected_api_response branch August 10, 2023 07:56
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
C-audit_fix fixes bug found in the audit P-acks_required Process - Requires more ACKs or utACKs
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

4 participants