skip to main content
10.1145/3005745.3005771acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagescommConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

The Internet Blockchain: A Distributed, Tamper-Resistant Transaction Framework for the Internet

Published:09 November 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

Existing security mechanisms for managing the Internet infrastructural resources like IP addresses, AS numbers, BGP advertisements and DNS mappings rely on a Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) that can be potentially compromised by state actors and Advanced Persistent Threats (APTs). Ideally the Internet infrastructure needs a distributed and tamper-resistant resource management framework which cannot be subverted by any single entity. A secure, distributed ledger enables such a mechanism and the blockchain is the best known example of distributed ledgers.

In this paper, we propose the use of a blockchain based mechanism to secure the Internet BGP and DNS infrastructure. While the blockchain has scaling issues to be overcome, the key advantages of such an approach include the elimination of any PKI-like root of trust, a verifiable and distributed transaction history log, multi-signature based authorizations for enhanced security, easy extensibility and scriptable programmability to secure new types of Internet resources and potential for a built in cryptocurrency. A tamper resistant DNS infrastructure also ensures that it is not possible for the application level PKI to spoof HTTPS traffic.

References

  1. 1.7 Transactions Per Second? Really? http://hashingit.com/analysis/33-7-transactions-per-second.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.BGPSec Protocol Specification. https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-ietf-sidr-bgpsec-protocol-17.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.Bitcoin Mining Pools. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/07/03/business/dealbook/bitcoin-china.html?_r=0.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.Bitcoin Scalability. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Scalability.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.DNS Security Extensions. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_Name_System_Security_Extensions.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.Hashgraph. http://www.swirlds.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2016-05-31-Overview-of-Swirlds-Hashgraph-1.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.IBM ADEPT. http://www-935.ibm.com/services/multimedia/GBE03662USEN.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.IETF DANE WG. https://datatracker.ietf.org/wg/dane/charter/.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.NameCoin. https://namecoin.info.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.Nuage Networks. http://www.nuagenetworks.net.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.Payment Channels. https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Payment_channels.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.Secure BGP Deployment Final Report. http://transition.fcc.gov/bureaus/pshs/advisory/csric3/CSRIC_III_WG6_Report_March_202013.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.The BGP Instability Report. http://bgpupdates.potaroo.net/instability/bgpupd.html.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.The Ethereum Project. www.ethereum.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.The Hyperledger Project. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperledger.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.University of Oregon Route Views Project. www.routeviews.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.Adam Back et. al. Enabling Blockchain Innovations with Pegged Sidechains. https://blockstream.com/sidechains.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.M. Ali, J. Nelson, R. Shea, and M. J. Freedman. Blockstack: A Global Naming and Storage System Secured by Blockchains. In 2016 USENIX Annual Technical Conference (USENIX ATC 16), pages 181–194, Denver, CO, June 2016. USENIX Association.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.Arvind Narayanan et.al. Bitcoin and Cryptocurrency Technologies. https://d28rh4a8wq0iu5.cloudfront.net/bitcointech/readings/princeton_bitcoin_book.pdf?a=1. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. 20.J. Bailey, D. Pemberton, A. Linton, C. Pelsser, and R. Bush. Enforcing RPKI-based Routing Policy on the Data Plane at an Internet Exchange. In Proceedings of the Third Workshop on Hot Topics in Software Defined Networking, HotSDN '14. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21.M. Castro and B. Liskov. Practical Byzantine Fault Tolerance. OSDI '99, 1999. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. 22.C. Decker, J. Seidel, and R. Wattenhofer. Bitcoin Meets Strong Consistency. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Distributed Computing and Networking, pages 13:1–13:10, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. 23.Eleftherios Kokoris Kogias et. al. Enhancing Bitcoin Security and Performance with Strong Consistency via Collective Signing. In 25th USENIX Security Symposium (USENIX Security 16), pages 279–296, 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.A. Elmokashfi and A. Dhamdhere. Revisiting BGP Churn Growth. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 44(1), 2013. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. 25.I. Eyal, A. E. Gencer, E. G. Sirer, and R. Van Renesse. Bitcoin-NG: A scalable blockchain protocol. In 13th USENIX Symposium on Networked Systems Design and Implementation (NSDI 16), pages 45–59, 2016. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. 26.S. Goldberg. Why Is It Taking So Long To Secure Internet Routing? Communications of the ACM, 57(10):56–63, 2014. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. 27.A. Gupta, N. Feamster, and L. Vanbever. Authorizing Network Control at Software Defined Internet Exchange Points. 2016.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.D. Gupta, A. Segal, A. Panda, G. Segev, M. Schapira, J. Feigenbaum, J. Rexford, and S. Shenker. A New Approach to Interdomain Routing Based on Secure Multi-Party Computation. Hotnets'12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. 29.Gupta, Arpit et. al. SDX: a software defined internet exchange. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 44(4):551–562, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. 30.A. Haeberlen. NetReview: Detecting When Interdomain Routing Goes Wrong. NSDI, 2009. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. 31.E. Heilman, D. Cooper, L. Reyzin, and S. Goldberg. From the consent of the routed: Improving the transparency of the rpki. ACM SIGCOMM Computer Communication Review, 44(4):51–62, 2015. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. 32.L. Lamport. The Part-Time Parliament. ACM Transactions on Computer Systems, 16(2), 1998. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. 33.M. Lepinski et. al. A Profile for Route Origin Authorizations (ROAs). RFC 6482 (Proposed Standard), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.M. Lepinski et. al. An Infrastructure to Support Secure Internet Routing. RFC 6480 (Informational), 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.S. Nakamoto. Bitcoin: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System. https://bitcoin.org/bitcoin.pdf.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    HotNets '16: Proceedings of the 15th ACM Workshop on Hot Topics in Networks
    November 2016
    217 pages
    ISBN:9781450346610
    DOI:10.1145/3005745

    Copyright © 2016 ACM

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 9 November 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions about this article.

    Request Permissions

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • research-article

    Acceptance Rates

    HotNets '16 Paper Acceptance Rate30of108submissions,28%Overall Acceptance Rate110of460submissions,24%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader