4.7 Article

Tight Bound on Incnetive Ratio for Sybil Attack in Resource Sharing System

Journal

IEEE TRANSACTIONS ON CLOUD COMPUTING
Volume 10, Issue 2, Pages 913-924

Publisher

IEEE-INST ELECTRICAL ELECTRONICS ENGINEERS INC
DOI: 10.1109/TCC.2020.2984760

Keywords

Game theory; resource sharing; market equilibrium mechanism; incentive ratio

Funding

  1. National Nature Science Foundation of China [61761146005, 11871366, 61803279, 61632017]
  2. Research Grant Council of Hong Kong (ECS Project) [26200314]
  3. USTS [XKZ2017003]
  4. Research Grant Council of Hong Kong (GRF Project) [16213115, 16243516]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article discusses the Sybil attack in a sharing-based economic system and examines the robustness of the market equilibrium mechanism against such an attack. By measuring the incentive ratio, it is found that no participant can increase their share by more than root 2 times in the market equilibrium solution.
In this article, we discuss the Sybil attack on a sharing-based economic system where each participant contributes its own resource for all to share. Such an attack is possible especially in the cloud computing model where agents can exchange information with the cloud and obtain aggregated information from it. We are interested in the robustness of the market equilibrium mechanism against such an attack. We adopt the incentive ratio to measure the gain that a participant can make by splitting its identity and reconstructing communication connections with others. On one hand, we show that no player can increase more than root 2 times its original share in the market equilibrium solution by characterizing the worst case, in which a strategic agent can obtain the maximal gain in utility by playing the Sybil attack. On the other hand, the bound of root 2 is proved to be tight by constructing a proper instance. We also simulate on a series of random graphs and observe that the incentive ratio was no more than two in the general setting.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available