DOS-Resistant Authentication with Client Puzzles

By T. Aura, Pekka Nikander, J. Leiwo. Security Protocols Workshop, 2000

432 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Artificial Intelligence, Computer Networks and Communications, Electrical and Electronic Engineering

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/4e9de5725e8b6afb04a6cf798ae2432a0e0efb18

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Artificial Intelligence

In Computer Networks and Communications

In Electrical and Electronic Engineering

Citations in the corpus

A taxonomy of DDoS attack and DDoS defense mechanisms (2004, background): “Examples of protocol security mechanisms include guidelines for a safe protocol design in which resources are committed to the client only after sufficient authentication is done [44, 50], or the client has paid a sufficient price [5], deployment of a powerful proxy server that completes TCP connect”
The Eigentrust algorithm for reputation management in P2P networks (2003, background): “For example, a peer wishing to enter the network may be required to solve a puzzle that a computer cannot solve [3, 5].”
DDoS attacks and defense mechanisms: classification and state-of-the-art (2004, result): “[86], suggested a slight variation to those proposed by Juels and Bernard.”
Verifiable Delay Functions (2018, background): “Both concepts have been studied for a variety of applications, including TLS handshake requests [7, 29], node creation in peer-to-peer networks [30], creation of digital currency [65, 27, 59] or censorship resistance [18].”
A Survey on Wireless Sensor Network Security (2009, background): “To defend against flooding DoS attack at the transport layer, Aura et al have proposed a mechanism using client puzzles [3].”
Security of the Internet of Things: Vulnerabilities, Attacks, and Countermeasures (2019, methodology): “The method presented in [141] requires clients to demonstrate the commitment to”
Denial of Service in Sensor Networks (2002, background): “One defense requires clients to demonstrate the commitment of their own resources to each connection by solving client puzzles.(16) The server can create and verify the puzzles easily, and storage of client-specific information is not required while clients are solving the puzzles.”
The Sybil Attack (2002, background): “Computational puzzles are an old technique [25] that has become popular recently for resisting denial-of-service attacks [1, 9, 20] by forcing the attacker to perform more work than the victim.”
Wireless Sensor Network Security: A Survey (2006, background): “To overcome the transport layer flooding denial of service attack Aura, Nikander and Leiwo suggest using the client puzzles posed by Juels and Brainard [5] in an effort to discern a node’s commitment to making the connection by utilizing some of their own resources.”