The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A reputation-based approach for choosing reliable resources in peer-to-peer networks
Abstract
Peer-to-peer (P2P) applications have seen an enormous success, and recently introduced P2P services have reached tens of millions of users. A feature that significantly contributes to the success of many P2P applications is user anonymity. However, anonymity opens the door to possible misuses and abuses, exploiting the P2P network as a way to spread tampered with resources, including Trojan Horses, viruses, and spam. To address this problem we propose a self-regulating system where the P2P network is used to implement a robust reputation mechanism. Reputation sharing is realized through a distributed polling algorithm by which resource requestors can assess the reliability of a resource offered by a participant before initiating the download. This way, spreading of malicious contents will be reduced and eventually blocked. Our approach can be straightforwardly piggybacked on existing P2P protocols and requires modest modifications to current implementations.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Handbook of applied cryptography
(1997) · Choice Reviews Online · doi:10.5860/choice.34-4512 · Cited by 10,357
Resnick, P., Kuwabara, K., Zeckhauser, R., & Friedman, E. (2000) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/355112.355122 · Cited by 2,190 · cited 1×
“Reputation models allow the expression and reasoning about trust in a peer based on its past behavior [18] and interactions other peers have experienced with it.”
BackgroundManaging trust in a peer-2-peer information system
Aberer, K., & Despotovic, Z. (2001) · Proceedings of the tenth international conference on Information and knowledge management - CIKM'01 · doi:10.1145/502636.502638 · Cited by 915
Cited by
A survey of trust and reputation systems for online service provision
Jøsang, A., Ismail, R., & Boyd, C. (2007) · Decision Support Systems · doi:10.1016/j.dss.2005.05.019 · Cited by 3,330
Security and Privacy Issues of Fog Computing: A Survey
Yi, S., Qin, Z., & Li, Q. (2015) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-21837-3_67 · Cited by 517
Survey of research towards robust peer-to-peer networks: Search methods
Risson, J., & Moors, T. (2006) · Computer Networks · doi:10.1016/j.comnet.2006.02.001 · Cited by 386
TrustGuard: countering vulnerabilities in reputation management for decentralized overlay networks
Srivatsa, M., Xiong, L., & Liu, L. (2005) · Proceedings of the 14th international conference on World Wide Web - WWW '05 · doi:10.1145/1060745.1060808 · Cited by 309
Sybillimit: a near-optimal social network defense against sybil attacks
Yu, H., Gibbons, P. B., Kaminsky, M., & Xiao, F. (2010) · IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking · doi:10.1109/tnet.2009.2034047 · Cited by 246
Metadata
- Authors
- Damiani, E., di Vimercati, D. C., Paraboschi, S., Samarati, P., & Violante, F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and communications security
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2002-11-18
- Pages
- 207-216
- ISSN
- 1543-7221 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1994181344
- Cited by
- 605
- References
- 3
- FWCI
- 46.21
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A reputation-based approach for choosing reliable resources in peer-to-peer networks. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/586110.586138
- The paper
- Damiani, E., di Vimercati, D. C., Paraboschi, S., Samarati, P., & Violante, F. (2002). A reputation-based approach for choosing reliable resources in peer-to-peer networks. Proceedings of the 9th ACM conference on Computer and communications security. https://doi.org/10.1145/586110.586138
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
