Exploring Sybil Attack on Proof of Stake (PoS) Network

Source

INTRODUCTION

A Sybil attack is an attack in which the attacker creates multiple identities or nodes for the purpose of subverting a network. Such an attack pose a risk to various blockchain consensus mechanisms or methodologies including Proof of Stake (PoS). In such networks, validators are selected depending on the amount of coins a particular individual owns at that time. This makes sybil attacks more worrisome as it becomes possible for the attackers to create numerous false validators therefore controlling a greater portion of the network.

These classes of attacks are particularly harmful in systems such as PoS, where trust is not vested in a central authority but rather on a distributed consensus. As it is posed with PoS attackers with enough resources Reverse these tactics, and make use of their acquisition of on this block’s power to make sure that only valid transactions are posted, these are fraudulent nowadays. These kinds of assaults are damaging the Security and integrity of the PoS networks as honest validators are in charge of the correct verification of transactions.

It is well understood that while pos networks have adequate measures for countering attacks such as economic sanctions they are no panacea towards the issue of sybil attacks. But of importance and concern to the welfare of the PoS networks in the long run is the manner in which these attacks occur and how they can be contained.

CREATION OF FAKE VALIDATORS

In a Sybil attack in PoS networks, the attacker generates multiple spurious validator identities to increase his probability of being chosen to validate blocks. The PoS system selects validators according to the amount they have staked. Hence, if an adversary splits his stake among several accounts, he will multiply the probability of being selected.

Each fake validator can participate in block validation, so the more validators faked, the more influence can be exerted by the attacker. Faking validators is particularly damaging if done by an attacker that owns large proportion of total network stake, since the attacker may then validate fraudulent transactions or otherwise change blockchain consensus rules.

To mitigate this threat, PoS networks typically require that validators put forward some minimum stake to eventually become a validator, making expensive for attackers to fake many validators. This discourages Sybil attacks and ensures that each validator has “skin in the game” and thus a strong incentive to faithfully follow protocol rules.

NETWORK PARTITIONING

Sybil attacks can allow an attacker to split the network into separate parts. By generating numerous fake identities, the attacker can manipulate communication between different sections of the network. In a Proof of Stake (PoS) system, this means the attacker can cut off certain validators from the rest of the network, stopping them from taking part in the consensus process.

This kind of network partitioning can result in double-spending or denial-of-service attacks. With the network divided, attackers can use their fake validators to approve illegitimate transactions on one side of the split. When the partitions come back together, these transactions might be accepted by the broader network, compromising the security of the blockchain.

Source

To combat this problem, PoS networks might adopt protocols designed to identify and recover from network partitions, making sure that validators are aligned on the same version of the blockchain.

STAKE CONCENTRATION

Another strategy in Sybil attacks is the stake concentration, where the attacker owns a large fraction of the network staking by creating multiple fake identities. In PoS networks, validators having more coins are more likely to be chosen to validate new blocks. By dividing his holdings between multiple validators, the attacker increases his influence on the network.

This is because a concentration of stake allows the attacker to be able to approve transactions without following the consensus rules of the network. The more stake they control, the more blocks they can validate. If this continues over a long enough period of time it leads to one entity being able to control all blocks and effectively take over the network, which is not what we consider as decentralised in blockchain.

Most proof-of-stake networks have some sort of mechanism (e.g slashing penalties) that discourages people from becoming too large a percentage of validators as if you are caught being malicious or trying something along these lines a % amount will be removed from your overall staked amount which would deter anyone from trying this again.

MANIPULATING CONSENSUS

A Sybil attack in PoS involves compromising the consensus and that is the ultimate goal. In this scenario, the attacker creates numerous fictitious validators and attaches the greater power, which decides which transactions are recorded within the chain. This manipulation can further expand to double-spending attacks, where coins are spent twice in different transactions.

In PoS there is a willing voter that is a validator, and this voter approves transactions. However, if attackers manage to control most of the validators, they will be capable of approving malicious transactions or rejecting honest ones. This reduces the confidence of users within the network which is not desirable mostly to investors.

To address this problem, there are additional measures employed in many PoS networks, such as finality gadgets. Therefore, once a block is added, it cannot be undone easily. Consequently, this enables the prevention of consensus manipulation and also protects the blockchain.

CONCLUSION

Source

Sybil attacks, represent a high threat in the operation of Proof of Stake networks as they can disrupt the normal process of consensus, shape and affect transactions, and bring decentralization asunder. Special measures with regard to these attacks were taken by PoS networks adopting minimum stake, slashing and finality gadgets. In spite of this, even though sybil attacks are still problematic, the ever-growing rate of the advancement of PoS technology is going to be able to prevent the ‘death’ of the networks.