Cited by 246Spam and Phishing DetectionAccess Control and TrustPeer-to-Peer Network Technologies

Sybillimit: a near-optimal social network defense against sybil attacks

Yu, Haifeng, Gibbons, Phillip B., Kaminsky, Michael, Xiao, Feng·2010·IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking

Abstract

Open-access distributed systems such as peer-to-peer systems are particularly vulnerable tosybil attacks, where a malicious user creates multiple fake identities (calledsybil nodes). Without a trusted central authority that can tie identities to real human beings, defending against sybil attacks is quite challenging. Among the small number of decentralized approaches, our recent SybilGuard protocol leverages a key insight on social networks to bound the number of sybil nodes accepted. Despite its promising direction, SybilGuard can allow a large number of sybil nodes to be accepted. Furthermore, SybilGuard assumes that social networks are fast-mixing, which has never been confirmed in the real world. This paper presents the novel SybilLimit protocol that leverages the same insight as SybilGuard, but offers dramatically improved and near-optimal guarantees. The number of sybil nodes accepted is reduced by a factor ofΘ(√n), or around 200 times in our experiments for a million-node system. We further prove that SybilLimit's guarantee is at most alognfactor away from optimal when considering approaches based on fast-mixing social networks. Finally, based on three large-scale real-world social networks, we provide the first evidence that real-world social networks are indeed fast-mixing. This validates the fundamental assumption behind SybilLimit's and SybilGuard's approach.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1109/tnet.2009.2034047

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Most existing IoT architectures maintain a centralized data centre for storing and processing sensor data, which is at risk of security breaches, single-point failure, and malicious attacks such as DDoS and Sybil attacks.

    “Most existing IoT architecture maintains a centralized data centre for storing and processing sensors' data, which can be at risk of breaching security, single-point failure and malicious attacks like DDoS, Sybil attack [8,10,273].”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 53 · Cited by 246

Authors
Yu, H., Gibbons, P. B., Kaminsky, M., & Xiao, F.
Affiliations
  • National University of Singapore (SG)
  • Intel (United States) (US)
Venue
IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking
Published
2010-06
Volume
18
Issue
3
Pages
885-898
ISSN
  • 1063-6692 (ISSN-L)
  • 1558-2566
OpenAlex
W2110801527
Cited by
246
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 27 · 2013: 26 · 2012: 20
FWCI
53.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking (publishedVersion)
  • National University of Singapore (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › Spam and Phishing Detection
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Access Control and Trust
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Networks and Communications › Peer-to-Peer Network Technologies
Keywords
Sybil attack, peer-to-peer networks, distributed systems security, false identity

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review