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

Add Support For Sentry Nodes In Prysm #11048

Open
nisdas opened this issue Jul 13, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Add Support For Sentry Nodes In Prysm #11048

nisdas opened this issue Jul 13, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
Discussion Simply a thread for talking about stuff Enhancement New feature or request Security Security Related Issues

Comments

@nisdas
Copy link
Member

nisdas commented Jul 13, 2022

🚀 Feature Request

Description

Currently there is a tightly coupled relationship between the validator and a singular beacon node. This means any validator
that is actively connected to a beacon node, will send all attestations/sync committee messages and blocks to that particular
beacon node each time. While this is fine for the average case( attestations), this brings up an attack vector during the block
proposal slot for a particular validator. Validators constantly hop between attestation subnets across epochs. By observing messages in a particular subnet, you can determine which node IPs are participating in that subnet. Once you continue recording this data across different subnets in future epochs, it is possible to have stronger guarantees of which validator IPs map to which particular public keys.

This is problematic as validators' participating in block proposals are vulnerable to DOS attacks since their IP address is leaked. Since proposal schedules are known in advance( 1 epoch - 1 slot), this gives a fair bit of time for a targeted DOS attack on a validator who has had their IP leaked.

Describe the solution you'd like

Prysm should be able to support sentry nodes which would be used only for block proposals. These sentry nodes would never participate in the subscription of subnets and would only subscribe to the default pubsub topics. Along with that the validator client
would have to be modified to send the block proposal to the sentry node instead of the actively connected beacon node.

Describe alternatives you've considered

N.A

@nisdas nisdas added Enhancement New feature or request Discussion Simply a thread for talking about stuff Security Security Related Issues labels Jul 13, 2022
@asn-d6
Copy link

asn-d6 commented Jul 14, 2022

FWIW here is the corresponding ticket for lighthouse: sigp/lighthouse#3328

I'm mentioning it in case you want to copy the UI, so that the UX is similar across clients.

Good luck!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Discussion Simply a thread for talking about stuff Enhancement New feature or request Security Security Related Issues
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants