© 2006 andreas haeberlen, mpi-sws 1 the case for byzantine fault detection andreas haeberlen...

© 2006 Andreas Haeberlen, MPI-SWS1

The Case for Byzantine Fault Detection

Andreas Haeberlen

MPI-SWS / Rice University

Petr Kouznetsov MPI-SWS

Peter Druschel MPI-SWS

2© 2006 Andreas Haeberlen, MPI-SWS

Challenge: Byzantine faults Distributed systems are subject to

a variety of failures and attacks Hacker break-in Freeloading Censorship Data corruption Software/hardware failure

Byzantine failure model: Faulty nodes may exhibit arbitrary behavior

Dependable systems must be protected against Byzantine faults


Existing approach: Fault tolerance

Byzantine fault tolerance (BFT) can mask a limited number of Byzantine faults

Example: Castro and Liskov [OSDI'99]

Client

Serverreplicas


Alternative approach: Fault detection Nodes monitor each other for faulty behavior When a fault occurs, the correct nodes

identify the faulty node(s) distribute evidence of the fault

Nodes can isolate the faulty node + initiate recovery

Byzantine Fault Detection


Byzantine Fault Detection

Alternative approach: Fault detection Nodes monitor each other for faulty behavior When a fault occurs, the correct nodes

identify the faulty node(s) distribute evidence of the fault

Nodes can isolate the faulty node + initiate recovery

D C

B

A

ESet X=5

D C

A

E

D C

B

A

EOK

X=?X=7 E: X=5

7! B


Level3

Best approach depends on the application

Best-effort service Goal: Find faulty components Wide-area delays, limited

bandwidth, many nodes

Air traffic control Inter-domain routing

Failures may be fatal! Goal: Mask fault symptoms Delays negligible, bandwidth

plentiful, few nodes

Machine roomAT&T

Sprint

Typical application for Fault DetectionTypical application for Fault Tolerance


Detection can provide accountability In an accountable system:

Actions are undeniable State is tamper-evident Correctness can be certified

Good nodes can provide evidence that they are good

Bad nodes cannot hide evidence of misbehavior

Proven concept in society Banking, administration ...

Desirable for distributed systems [Yumerefendi05] Example: Building trust in federated systems


What about performance?

If up to f nodes can be faulty, we need f+1 replicas to guarantee detection (fault tolerance: 3f+1)

More throughput using the same resources Works even when >33% of the nodes can become

faulty

Detection can defer overhead to periods of low load

System can deliver high peak throughput

Detection does not require consensus Potentially less expensive than BFT


Outline

Introduction BFD abstraction PeerReview algorithm Conclusion


How is BFD used?

Each correct node has state machine + detector Detector can inspect all messages at its local node When detector observes a fault on another node,

it informs its local application, and it provides evidence of the fault to other detectors

?

Application

State machine Detector

Network

Node Xis

faulty!

No assumptionsabout faulty nodes


Only observable faults can be detected

Two classes of observable faults: Detectable faultiness: Node breaks the protocol Detectable ignorance: Node refuses to respond

As long as the faulty node continues to follow the protocol, BFD cannot detect this!

Set X=5

OKGet X

5

A B C

Correct

Set X=5

OKGet X

A B CSet X=5

OKGet X

7

A B C

Detectably ignorantDetectably faulty


BFD can give strong guarantees Three types of detector output

Trusted, suspected, exposed

Strong completeness "No false negatives"

Strong accuracy "No false positives"

Precise definitions are in the paper

Trusted

Suspected Exposed


Outline

Introduction BFD abstraction PeerReview algorithm Conclusion


Assumptions

1. Protocol can be modeled as a deterministic state machine

2. Each node has a strong identity, as well as a public/private keypair for signing messages

3. The faulty nodes cannot prevent two correct nodes from communicating break the cryptographic keys


Secure logging

All messages are signed and acknowledged Each node keeps a log of all local inputs and outputs Nodes must commit to the contents of their log

Log is tamper-evident [Maniatis02]

Rcv(A, "Set X=5")Send(A, "Okay")Rcv(C, "Get X")Send(C, "5")

Snd(B, "Set X=5")Rcv(B, "Okay")

Snd(B, "Get X")Rcv(B, "5")

B's log

A

B

C


Detecting ignorance

If a node refuses to acknowledge a message Send message as evidence to other nodes Correct nodes will challenge the ignorant node to prove

that its log contains a 'Rcv' entry for that message A correct node can always respond

Rcv(A, "Set X=5")Send(A, "Okay")Recv(C, "Get X")

A

B

C


Detecting faultiness

Nodes can audit each other's log at any time Auditors replay input in the log, compare output If a divergence is detected

Send log as evidence to other nodes Other nodes can repeat the same procedure to check

whether the node is really faulty (no he-said-she-said!)

Rcv(A, "Set X=5")Send(A, "Okay")Rcv(B, "Get X")Send(B, "7")

A

B

C

B'


State machine B is expected to run


Snap-shots


Summary

New approach: Byzantine Fault Detection Alternative to fault tolerance Provides accountability

Fault Detection can give strong guarantees Eventual strong accuracy and completeness

Early results indicate Fault Detection is practical Example: PeerReview algorithm

Thank you!

© 2006 andreas haeberlen, mpi-sws 1 the case for byzantine fault detection andreas haeberlen...

Documents