PeerReview: practical accountability for distributed systems

By Andreas Haeberlen, Petr Kuznetsov, Peter Druschel. Symposium on Operating Systems Principles, 2007

486 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Computer Networks and Communications

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/b08004862fb519fa1fa746664003fcdc41694226

How researchers see this paper

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

In Computer Networks and Communications

Citations in the corpus

ROTE: Rollback Protection for Trusted Execution (2017, background): “[30] provides accountability for distributed systems and in particular detect nodes that violate from expected behaviour.”
ConTrib: Universal and Decentralized Accounting in Shared-Resource Systems (2020, background): “PeerReview and FullReview are accountability mechanisms that record message exchange between peers, and use dedicated witness sets to detect whether a peer deviates from the protocol [8, 14].”
Depot: Cloud Storage with Minimal Trust (2010, background): “PeerReview [31] requires a quorum of witnesses with complete information (hindering liveness), one of which must be correct (a trust requirement that”
Making argument systems for outsourced computation practical (sometimes) (2012, background): “sume independent failures and replicate [6, 25, 42, 52, 56]), and theoretical solutions, which tend toward specialized algorithms for the computation at hand.”
Chainspace: A Sharded Smart Contracts Platform (2017, background): “Before the emergence of blockchain-based systems, PeerReview [13] was proposed, a system that allow Byzantine faults to be irrefutably linked to a faulty node.”
CoinShuffle: Practical Decentralized Coin Mixing for Bitcoin (2014, methodology): “This problem is not particular to CoinShuffle and can be handled using the same techniques as in Dissent [28], which in turn borrows ideas from PeerReview [41].”
Accountable Virtual Machines (2010, methodology): “3), we adapt a technique from PeerReview [21], which already comes with a proof of correctness [22].”
Resolving the conflict between generality and plausibility in verified computation (2013, unknown): “Replication [4, 19, 32, 41] assumes that failures are uncorrelated.”
Attested append-only memory: making adversaries stick to their word (2007, unknown): “Also, PeerReview [16], CATS [40], and Timeweave [30] use authenticated histories to allow fault detection given a replica’s self-inconsistent history; this might be a helpful mechanism to allow A2M-based protocols to recover even when the safety fault bound is (temporarily) violated.”
Vanish: Increasing Data Privacy with Self-Destructing Data (2009, methodology): “Measurement studies of the Vuze and Mainline DHTs estimate in excess of one million simultaneously active nodes in each of the two networks [28].”
Dissent: accountable anonymous group messaging (2010, methodology): “For simplicity, our core protocol descriptions in Sections 3 and 4 assume that nodes never just go silent; we address liveness using principles from PeerReview [19] as outlined in Section 5.”
Translation Tutorial : A Shared Lexicon for Research and Practice in Human-Centered Software Systems (2018, background): “…that, after a system runs, there exists a record which describes what the system did (i.e., what outputs or observable behaviors it had), what caused the system to do those things (i.e., what inputs were provided), and what agent within the system took particular actions (Haeberlen et al., 2007).”
Hang with your buddies to resist intersection attacks (2013, unknown): “The servers use standard distributed accountability techniques [13] to cross-check each others’ computation of Policy Oracle decisions, halting progress and raising an alarm if any server deviates from an agreed-upon deterministic algorithm implementing the Policy Oracle.”
Reliable Client Accounting for Hybrid Content-Distribution Networks (2012, background): “Moreover, all clients record a tamper-evident log [20] of their actions and must periodically upload their log to an infrastructure node; this severely restricts the ability of malicious clients to lie without getting caught.”