Pages:
Author

Topic: [ANN] (QTUM) - A Scalable Smart Contract Platform w/ Proof of Stake - page 31. (Read 525459 times)

legendary
Activity: 1302
Merit: 1000
You are always welcome.
I really want to keep the QTUM topic clean because it will help me to more easily follow the annoucement and serious details of QTUM project.
Mainly because I actually invested into QTUM.
Very helpful, thank you.
Moreover, your 3 merits sent mins ago to me, make me so happy.
Best,

Not only you there are many people who has interest towards this Qtum project due to potential it has. In 2017, qtum secured very good volumes and the price of qtum increased a lot and this make us to hold them until next bull run starts again.
sr. member
Activity: 572
Merit: 259
LSK, QTUM
any ideas on price specuations?
member
Activity: 189
Merit: 12
High volume

That's cos it's a holiday in China and most shops are closed, so people are staying at home trading cryptos. Grin

On a serious note, I'm sick to death of Google's Captchas - sick of the hard-to-see images and being used by Google to create A.I. for military drones. CEOs aren't happy until - one way or another! - their hands are covered in blood. Shame on Web site owners for being complicit when there are perfectly good alternatives. Angry
hero member
Activity: 2366
Merit: 838
You are always welcome.
I really want to keep the QTUM topic clean because it will help me to more easily follow the annoucement and serious details of QTUM project.
Mainly because I actually invested into QTUM.
Very helpful, thank you.
Moreover, your 3 merits sent mins ago to me, make me so happy.
Best,
sr. member
Activity: 722
Merit: 259
Nice attitude to keep the announcement topic of QTUM as clean as possible.
There has been an uptick in unwanted spam messages on this thread. We're actively monitoring it.
By the way, I would like to give you one topic on [Guide] Reporting effectively
This one might help you to more effectively report spambies to moderators.

Very helpful, thank you.
hero member
Activity: 2366
Merit: 838
Nice attitude to keep the announcement topic of QTUM as clean as possible.
There has been an uptick in unwanted spam messages on this thread. We're actively monitoring it.
By the way, I would like to give you one topic on [Guide] Reporting effectively
This one might help you to more effectively report spambies to moderators.
sr. member
Activity: 722
Merit: 259
There has been an uptick in unwanted spam messages on this thread. We're actively monitoring it.
sr. member
Activity: 798
Merit: 281
I thought it was already listed at indodax, perhaps the other announcement was a 'will be' listing. Good to see that there is an expanded market now moving into indonesian territory. Singapore, Philippines, and Indonesia are becoming crypto hubs in that region
hero member
Activity: 2366
Merit: 838
Well done to keep the QTUM community safe from potential losses.
Moreover, you can also report those guys and their bad posts with potential phishing links to forum moderators.
We deleted a post which linked to a non-official wallet.

Always should use wallet versions published by the developer's account in the Ann topic or in the website of QTUM project.
Quote
Please remember that our developers only publish updates to our official Github:

https://github.com/qtumproject
sr. member
Activity: 722
Merit: 259
We deleted a post which linked to a non-official wallet. 

Please remember that our developers only publish updates to our official Github:

https://github.com/qtumproject

hero member
Activity: 952
Merit: 501

qtum been listed on indodax!

one of the biggest Indonesia exchange.
full member
Activity: 588
Merit: 103
SESAME
hero member
Activity: 952
Merit: 501
Qtum best coin, thank you for your contribution to the development of decentralization.

it need just time, the whole market is bear market now.
legendary
Activity: 1148
Merit: 1000
Shocking new bug found in Qtum - it's been dubbed "The Event Horizon", and it sucks in all currently existing coins and they disappear for good Angry But the "gravitational pull" is so weak, almost no coins will actually be sucked in. Just kidding - April Fools! Grin Cheesy Tongue Wink Smiley

seems Qtum is the only coin fixed the bug immediately.

and still one of the biggest POS network.
member
Activity: 189
Merit: 12
Shocking new bug found in Qtum - it's been dubbed "The Event Horizon", and it sucks in all currently existing coins and they disappear for good Angry But the "gravitational pull" is so weak, almost no coins will actually be sucked in. Just kidding - April Fools! Grin Cheesy Tongue Wink Smiley
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 101
Qtum new Version  V0.17.1  released!



https://github.com/qtumproject/qtum/releases/tag/mainnet-ignition-v0.17.1



Update History
v0.17.1 - Upgrade Qtum core to bitcoin core 0.17.1 plus other improvements and bug fixes
Upgrade Qtum core to bitcoin core 0.17.1 including partially signed transactions support, external wallet files and more. Check bitcoin 0.17.0 and 0.17.1 release notes for more details.
Fix a bug which allowed using P2SH addresses as transaction sender in RPC interface, which caused that transaction to be rejected.
Fix an issue which prevented the correct logs to be printed when a state divergence was detected.
Prioritize create contract transactions over send to contract ones when staking.
Fix a bug which allowed node's time manipulation in some cases.
Fix a bug which prevented some EVM globals to be returned correctly when using callcontract RPC call.
Fix a bug which caused fee estimation to be excessively high in some cases.
Fix Solidity compiler link in the GUI wallet.
Make getaccountinfo RPC call help message clearer.
Improve the way encrypted wallet related RPC calls help messages were displayed.
Fix a bug that caused build description to be inaccurate.
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 101
Re: “Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies



https://blog.qtum.org/re-fake-stake-attacks-on-chain-based-proof-of-stake-cryptocurrencies-f26d58dc8f46

A group of researchers in the Decentralized Systems Lab at UIUC discovered “a series of resource exhaustion vulnerabilities” that affect numerous proof-of-stake networks, including Qtum.

To be clear, no funds were ever at risk. The attack illustrated by the team is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that can only be run against a single node at a time.

Nonetheless, we have been in touch with these researchers for several months through the team’s responsible disclosure of the bug. We appreciate the Decentralized System Lab’s research and the way they went about making us aware so we could fix the issue before it was made public over the past week.

The researchers presented two types of attacks:

“No Stake” — header spam attack
“Spent stake” — full blocks spam (not possible on Qtum)
As stated in the original article, only the “No Stake” vulnerability affected Qtum; however, we have already mitigated the risks of an attack from this vector in our 0.16.2 release.

The “No Stake” attack consisted of two similar but distinct attack vectors that could enable an attacker to cause a peer to run out of memory in the case of the first attack vector or disk space in the case of the second attack vector.

The first of these attack vectors was caused by insufficient validation before storing headers in memory. A potential attacker could, therefore, cause peers to run out of memory by flooding them with invalid headers. The reason why this was possible was that Qtum inherits Bitcoin’s headers-first feature that was introduced in version 0.10.0 of Bitcoin. In Bitcoin, the header’s proof-of-work (PoW) is validated before the header is stored in memory. However, there does not exist any PoW in Qtum’s proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol and the PoS in Qtum can only be fully validated once the full block is received since the coinstake transaction is located in the block. Therefore a potential attack could have been able to create a large number of invalid headers and send them to peers to cause them to run out of memory.

The second of these attack vectors was related to how/when Qtum does full-block validation. In Qtum, full block validation and coinstake validation is performed when a new block is received that has more total chainwork than the previous tip’s chainwork. In effect, this means that full checking of the PoS is done only when a new block is appended to the current tip or when a fork’s tip is received that has more total chainwork than the current tip and therefore triggers a block reorganization. However, In previous versions of Qtum, new blocks were committed to disk if a node received a block with chainwork equal to or greater than the current tip’s chainwork. An attacker could, therefore, make peers commit blocks to disk without the peers fully validating the PoS and cause them to run out of disk space.


Qtum’s v0.16.2, which was a recommended update included improved network security and bug fixes in the form of:

Implement network spam protection
Only request blocks from peers when their chainwork is strictly more significant than the current tip
Add extra header checks for PoS timestamp, block indexes, signature type (LowS), synchronized and rolling checkpoints.
Add recent checkpoints
Update nMinimumChainWork, defaultAssumeValid and chainTxData
Update BLOCK_CHAIN_SIZE
Fix failing Qt tests in make check on OSX Mojave
Fix getblocktemplate RPC for PoS blocks
Fix help messages for walletpassphrase and getnetworkhashps RPC’s
The block/disk attack required only a slight adjustment to when Qtum commits blocks to disk. Blocks are now committed to disk only if the block is part of a chain whose tip’s chainwork is greater than the active tip’s chainwork.

The header/memory attack was mitigated by implementing detection of potential header spam and disconnecting and banning any offending peer. Several checks that were previously only done when the full blocks were received were added to standalone header checking as well. Such as making sure that the signature contained in the header was in the correct format before committing the header to memory as large invalid signatures could be used to amplify header spam.

The network spam protection implemented in v0.16.2 detects peers who are trying to run such “No Stake” attacks and bans them. Now, nodes only request blocks from peers when their chainwork is strictly greater than the current tip. In addition to these countermeasures, we added extra header checks for PoS timestamps, block indexes, signature type (LowS), and synchronized and rolling checkpoints.

We believe that these patches should render any attacks near impossible to execute because of the added complexity and security features implemented. Despite this, we are working on a more comprehensive fix that has passed our initial tests, but since it is a comparatively more substantial change to the protocol, we require more tests.
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 101
Re: “Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies


A group of researchers in the Decentralized Systems Lab at UIUC discovered “a series of resource exhaustion vulnerabilities” that affect numerous proof-of-stake networks, including Qtum.

To be clear, no funds were ever at risk. The attack illustrated by the team is a type of denial-of-service (DoS) attack that can only be run against a single node at a time.

Nonetheless, we have been in touch with these researchers for several months through the team’s responsible disclosure of the bug. We appreciate the Decentralized System Lab’s research and the way they went about making us aware so we could fix the issue before it was made public over the past week.

The researchers presented two types of attacks:

“No Stake” — header spam attack
“Spent stake” — full blocks spam (not possible on Qtum)
As stated in the original article, only the “No Stake” vulnerability affected Qtum; however, we have already mitigated the risks of an attack from this vector in our 0.16.2 release.

The “No Stake” attack consisted of two similar but distinct attack vectors that could enable an attacker to cause a peer to run out of memory in the case of the first attack vector or disk space in the case of the second attack vector.

The first of these attack vectors was caused by insufficient validation before storing headers in memory. A potential attacker could, therefore, cause peers to run out of memory by flooding them with invalid headers. The reason why this was possible was that Qtum inherits Bitcoin’s headers-first feature that was introduced in version 0.10.0 of Bitcoin. In Bitcoin, the header’s proof-of-work (PoW) is validated before the header is stored in memory. However, there does not exist any PoW in Qtum’s proof-of-stake (PoS) protocol and the PoS in Qtum can only be fully validated once the full block is received since the coinstake transaction is located in the block. Therefore a potential attack could have been able to create a large number of invalid headers and send them to peers to cause them to run out of memory.

The second of these attack vectors was related to how/when Qtum does full-block validation. In Qtum, full block validation and coinstake validation is performed when a new block is received that has more total chainwork than the previous tip’s chainwork. In effect, this means that full checking of the PoS is done only when a new block is appended to the current tip or when a fork’s tip is received that has more total chainwork than the current tip and therefore triggers a block reorganization. However, In previous versions of Qtum, new blocks were committed to disk if a node received a block with chainwork equal to or greater than the current tip’s chainwork. An attacker could, therefore, make peers commit blocks to disk without the peers fully validating the PoS and cause them to run out of disk space.


Qtum’s v0.16.2, which was a recommended update included improved network security and bug fixes in the form of:

Implement network spam protection
Only request blocks from peers when their chainwork is strictly more significant than the current tip
Add extra header checks for PoS timestamp, block indexes, signature type (LowS), synchronized and rolling checkpoints.
Add recent checkpoints
Update nMinimumChainWork, defaultAssumeValid and chainTxData
Update BLOCK_CHAIN_SIZE
Fix failing Qt tests in make check on OSX Mojave
Fix getblocktemplate RPC for PoS blocks
Fix help messages for walletpassphrase and getnetworkhashps RPC’s
The block/disk attack required only a slight adjustment to when Qtum commits blocks to disk. Blocks are now committed to disk only if the block is part of a chain whose tip’s chainwork is greater than the active tip’s chainwork.

The header/memory attack was mitigated by implementing detection of potential header spam and disconnecting and banning any offending peer. Several checks that were previously only done when the full blocks were received were added to standalone header checking as well. Such as making sure that the signature contained in the header was in the correct format before committing the header to memory as large invalid signatures could be used to amplify header spam.

The network spam protection implemented in v0.16.2 detects peers who are trying to run such “No Stake” attacks and bans them. Now, nodes only request blocks from peers when their chainwork is strictly greater than the current tip. In addition to these countermeasures, we added extra header checks for PoS timestamps, block indexes, signature type (LowS), and synchronized and rolling checkpoints.

We believe that these patches should render any attacks near impossible to execute because of the added complexity and security features implemented. Despite this, we are working on a more comprehensive fix that has passed our initial tests, but since it is a comparatively more substantial change to the protocol, we require more tests.
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 101
“Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies

https://medium.com/@dsl_uiuc/fake-stake-attacks-on-chain-based-proof-of-stake-cryptocurrencies-b8b05723f806


This article is the public disclosure of a series of resource exhaustion vulnerabilities investigated by a team of students consisting of Sanket Kanjalkar (sanket1729, [email protected]), Yunqi Li, Yuguang Chen, Joseph Kuo, and our adviser Andrew Miller(socrates1024) in the Decentralized Systems Lab @ UIUC. These vulnerabilities have affected 26+ Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies in total and would allow a network attacker with a very small amount of stake to crash any of the network nodes running the corresponding software. We began a coordinated disclosure in October 2018 to notify development teams of affected cryptocurrencies ahead of this public release. The majority of them (weighted by marketcap) have already deployed mitigations.........


Vulnerability #1: “I Can’t Believe it’s not Stake”

When we first investigated this problem, we found that five cryptocurrencies, Qtum, Particl, Navcoin, HTMLcoin, and Emercoin, exhibited a fairly trivial form of this vulnerability: namely, they fail to check any coinstake transaction at all before committing a block to RAM or disk. What these five cryptocurrencies have in common is that they have adopted Bitcoin’s “headers first” feature, in which block propagation was split into two separate messages, Block and Header. Nodes only ask for Block after Header passes the PoW checks AND it is a longest (or longer) chain. Since the coinstake transaction is present only in Block but not the Header, a node cannot validate the Header on its own. Instead, it directly stores the header to an in-memory data structure (mapBlockIndex). As a result, any network attacker, even with no stake whatsoever, can fill up a victim node’s RAM..........









fixed, check qtum github
full member
Activity: 414
Merit: 101
“Fake Stake” attacks on chain-based Proof-of-Stake cryptocurrencies

Vulnerability #1: “I Can’t Believe it’s not Stake”

The chart says it's been fixed on Qtum. Only the first vulnerability was exploitable. But, as someone said, it's a bit worrying that Qtum kept quiet about this - but, then again, maybe it's best to keep quiet about something like this until everyone has it sorted.

"All these mitigations make the attack difficult to carry out but are still no substitute for full validation. Some cryptocurrencies, such as Qtum, plan to move to full validation of off-main-chain-blocks in future releases."


Qtum is the only one fixed the Problem.  no worry.
Pages:
Jump to: