Sybillimit: a near-optimal social network defense against sybil attacks
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
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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].”
From A survey on the adoption of blockchain in IoT: challenges and solutions (2021) · cites this paper as [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