This is very interesting but even remotely timing is an important fact as the nodes work concurrently. A script can be written for sure, but if it does fail, the system will not allow the same patron again. Idk if that's what you mean?
Also yes! network monitoring would be required for triggering, that isolation of the nodes you mention is the one I wanted to represent, for sure. In order to avoid constant interruption, false positives should be considered, but a contaminated area should definitely be isolated from transaction signing.
Yes exactly what I meant: script orders while checking for every result.
My idea was that if there's a "winning sequence" testing for it would require little effort: either attacker remotely send sequences OR better yet it keeps the connection to a passive/active node and program sequences variations and make one attacking-node the coordinator of attacks.
As I understood there's one successful sequence of attack.
From this my point was that from both points of view: attacker and defender it is easy to act.
"Easy" meaning simple logic but of course the attacker has work to do and the network defender has to constantly check for patterns in every node.
I don't know if that monitoring is practical in terms of network resources, however.
Anyway just thinking out loud about this: not an expert in networks at all ;)
Ah! yes, there's a successful sequence that should work once in case we use evolutionary algorithms to avoid it working again (not to mention randomness would try to prevent that, too), but yes, both attacking and defending are "easy", in any case.
thanks, tho, I'd see it further when using a real experiment.
For further actions, you may consider blocking this person and/or reporting abuse
We're a place where coders share, stay up-to-date and grow their careers.
This is very interesting but even remotely timing is an important fact as the nodes work concurrently. A script can be written for sure, but if it does fail, the system will not allow the same patron again. Idk if that's what you mean?
Also yes! network monitoring would be required for triggering, that isolation of the nodes you mention is the one I wanted to represent, for sure. In order to avoid constant interruption, false positives should be considered, but a contaminated area should definitely be isolated from transaction signing.
Thank you, such an interesting thoughts
Yes exactly what I meant: script orders while checking for every result.
My idea was that if there's a "winning sequence" testing for it would require little effort: either attacker remotely send sequences OR better yet it keeps the connection to a passive/active node and program sequences variations and make one attacking-node the coordinator of attacks.
As I understood there's one successful sequence of attack.
From this my point was that from both points of view: attacker and defender it is easy to act.
"Easy" meaning simple logic but of course the attacker has work to do and the network defender has to constantly check for patterns in every node.
I don't know if that monitoring is practical in terms of network resources, however.
Anyway just thinking out loud about this: not an expert in networks at all ;)
Ah! yes, there's a successful sequence that should work once in case we use evolutionary algorithms to avoid it working again (not to mention randomness would try to prevent that, too), but yes, both attacking and defending are "easy", in any case.
thanks, tho, I'd see it further when using a real experiment.