DOCSLIB.ORG

Protocol Encryption and Message Stream Encryption for Webtorrent

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Protocol Encryption and Message Stream Encryption for Webtorrent Protocol Encryption and Message Stream Encryption for WebTorrent Brian Gu,Kelvin Lu MIT, 6.858 (Computer Systems Security) {bgu, kelvinlu}@mit.edu May 12, 2018 Abstract Message Stream Encryption (MSE), also known as Protocol Encryption (PE), is an extension to the Bittorrent Protocol that encrypts the Bittorrent stream and header information. The goal is to make Bittorrent traffic harder to detect by third parties (e.g. ISP’s) while maintaining high download speeds. In this paper, we assess the security of PE/MSE and why it was important to implement for WebTorrent, a Javascript-based Bittorrent client for web browsers and Node.js servers. I. Introduction II. Background Readers can find Related Pull Request/Code i. Bittorrent here and here. The goal of Message Stream Encryption The BitTorrent Protocol is one of the most pop- (MSE) and Protocol Encryption (PE) is to ob- ular protocols for peer-to-peer file sharing. The fuscate the header for third-parties to detect peer-to-peer file sharing network model dif- BitTorrent traffic by encrypting header infor- fers significantly from the typical client-server mation. This provides anonymity and con- model in that all participants (nodes) on the fidentiality for peers, which is important in peer-to-peer network are equally privileged: countries where ISP’s are allowed to ban peers all nodes both consume and supply resources. suspected of illegal file sharing. Furthermore, This contrasts with the client-server model, BitTorrent is a favorite target of ISPs for throt- where a central authority is needed to coor- tling mechanisms1, and PE makes BitTorrent dinate between clients. As of 2015, AT&T es- traffic harder to detect and throttle. Protocol timates that BitTorrent makes up 20% of all Encryption also provides defense against man- broadband traffic2. in-the-middle attacks, preventing third-parties To download a file from a BitTorrent net- from spying on plaintext data being sent over work, a peer user must obtain the correspond- the protocol. ing .torrent file or magnet URI to discover Section II and III give context as to what peers who currently possess the file. The user problem we are solving and what the threat then reaches out to each seeding peer and initi- model looks like. Section IV details the ates the BitTorrent protocol to download por- PE/MSE handshake protocol, and Sections V tions of the file from each seeder. Once the and VI discuss the protocol and our discover- user has downloaded the file, they are then ies while researching and implementing this also seeders of the file and other peers can protocol for WebTorrent. download the file from them. 1TorrentFreak, Comcast Throttles BitTorrent Traffic, Seed- 2AT&T, AT&T patents system to âAŸfast-lane⢠A˘ Z´ BitTor- ing Impossible rent traffic 1 PE/MSE Encryption • May 2018 • bgu, kelvinlu ii. WebTorrent Our goal is to make BitTorrent traffic look indistinguishable from other Internet traffic so WebTorrent is an open-source torrent client that ISP’s and other eavesdroppers cannot de- written in Javascript, which works both in- tect that we are using BitTorrent. We also want browser and as a Node.js application. WebTor- to ensure that the PE/MSE handshake itself is rent implements the BitTorrent protocol as well secure from detection by eavesdroppers and as a number of features that are interesting in attackers that use MITM attacks. the context of usability and security. It is important to note that PE/MSE is not When run in browser, the WebTorrent client meant to provide security against an untrust- uses a modified version of the BitTorrent proto- worthy peer. The original BitTorrent protocol col and WebRTC, which encrypts data streams. ensures that seeders cannot send a different The WebRTC protocol is important as the in- file than what was originally asked for without browser client does not support TCP and in- downloaders noticing, and PE/MSE is meant stead relies on WebRTC for transport. Our fo- to add an additional layer of security above cus is on the Node.js server implementation of BitTorrent without compromising any of its WebTorrent that uses TCP, as the browser client features. is incompatible with most BitTorrent clients and is already provided encryption (both a result of using WebRTC). IV. PE/MSE Protocol The current server implementation of i. Cryptographic Handshake Protocol WebTorrent does not provide PE/MSE, which is an issue for servers communicating with The BitTorrent protocol begins with a Diffie- peers with restrictive ISP’s. The lack of encryp- Helman key exchange and encrypts using a tion is also an issue for users with particularly RC4 keystream cipher. Suppose that Client A is strict firewalls. a BitTorrent client that is seeking to download a file, and suppose that Client B is a BitTor- rent client that is seeding the same file. When III. Threat Model Client A initiates a connection with Client B, the handshake proceeds in five blocking steps. The threat model which Protocol Encryption In the first two steps, the two clients exchange addresses is one in which attackers may read Diffie-Helman Public Keys in order to negoti- the data streams between peers, in order to ate a shared secret. In the next two steps, the possibly: two clients verify the shared secret and shared torrent info hash, and negotiate a shared en- • Passively eavesdrop, with the goal of pro- cryption method (usually RC4 cipher). These tocol or content identification. steps are described in more detail below.3 • Actively execute MITM attacks. 1. Client A sends their Diffie-Helman Public X . Key using Ya = G a (mod P). G and P An example of an attacker which may read are known constants. Client A then sends the data streams (i.e. TCP transports) between a random-length padding PadA between 0 peers is an Internet Service Provider, which and 512 bytes. may do so with the goal of identifying and 2. Client B sends their Diffie-Helman Pub- throttling BitTorrent traffic. Many ISPs are lic Key Y , along with a random-length easily able to identify unencrypted BitTorrent b padding PadB. By this point, Client A and traffic simply by reading the plaintext hand- Client B both can calculate a shared secret shake sent between clients; the unencrypted S = YXb (mod P) = YXa (mod P). handshake always begins with \19Bittorrent a b Protocol. 3Specification taken from Vuze Wiki 2 PE/MSE Encryption • May 2018 • bgu, kelvinlu Figure 1: The PE/MSE handshake. Pluses are concatenations and quotations indicate string literals. 3. Client A sends over three to four items in 5. From here on out, Client A and Client B concatenation: communicate with the encryption method chosen by Client B (ENCRYPT2). This is • A SHA-1 hash of the string ’req1’ usually continuing the RC4 cipher, though concatenated with the Secret S. This some clients may opt to revert to plaintext allows Client B to resynchronize communication. their buffer after the random-length padding The stream key SKEY is the infohash of the • SKEY A SHA-1 hash of ’req2’ with torrent being requested. Client A will know xor’d with a SHA-1 hash of ’req3’ this because it is initiating the connection in with Secret S. Client B is able to iden- order to download a torrent with that infohash. tify which infohash Client A is re- In the current implementation of WebTorrent, questing with this, and initialize its a client may seed multiple files, so the seeding RC4 keystream. Client B will be able to determine which file • An encrypted concatenation of: a pro- Client A is requesting based on the hash of the VC tocol verification constant ( ), a list stream key. See Figure 1 for a summary of the of encryption methods Client B may handshake. select from (crypto_provide, meth- ods currently supported are plaintext and RC4 encryption), and a pad PadC ii. Handshake Security and its length (between 0 and 512 Here, we explain the security features provided bytes). by the components of the cryptographic hand- • (Optional) Client A may choose to be- shake. gin and encrypt the regular bittorrent protocol (IA) To ensure synchroniza- In the first two steps, each client sends a se- tion, Client A always sends the length quence of between 96 and 508 bytes that are in- of IA (0 if not sent) distinguishable from a random sequence. The purpose of concatenating PadA and PadB to the 4. Client B sends an encrypted concatenation ends of the respective clients’ DH public keys of: the same verification constant VC, an en- is to obfuscate the fact that both clients are cryption method crypto_select selected engaging in the MSE protocol; passive eaves- from the list of methods crypto_provide droppers would be able to more easily identify provided by Client A, and a pad padD and the protocol if a fixed length header was used its length (between 0 and 512 bytes). This instead. These two steps enable the clients to ends the handshake. establish a shared Diffie-Helman secret S. 3 PE/MSE Encryption • May 2018 • bgu, kelvinlu The information sent by Client A in the third V. System Evaluation step allows Client B to identify the appropriate torrent (via the obfuscated hash of the stream We implemented PE for WebTorrent according key), in the case where Client B is seeding to the above specification. Through our test- multiple torrents. The encrypted verification ing, we found that WebTorrent clients with our constant allows Client B to verify that Client implementation are able to communicate with A agrees on the shared secret and stream key, each other, and also with other major torrent and crypto_provide provides Client B with a clients implementing PE (such as mTorrent).
Load more

Recommended publications
  • What Is Peer-To-Peer File Transfer? Bandwidth It Can Use
    sharing, with no cap on the amount of commonly used to trade copyrighted music What is Peer-to-Peer file transfer? bandwidth it can use. Thus, a single NSF PC and software. connected to NSF’s LAN with a standard The Recording Industry Association of A peer-to-peer, or “P2P,” file transfer 100Mbps network card could, with KaZaA’s America tracks users of this software and has service allows the user to share computer files default settings, conceivably saturate NSF’s begun initiating lawsuits against individuals through the Internet. Examples of P2P T3 (45Mbps) internet connection. who use P2P systems to steal copyrighted services include KaZaA, Grokster, Gnutella, The KaZaA software assesses the quality of material or to provide copyrighted software to Morpheus, and BearShare. the PC’s internet connection and designates others to download freely. These services are set up to allow users to computers with high-speed connections as search for and download files to their “Supernodes,” meaning that they provide a How does use of these services computers, and to enable users to make files hub between various users, a source of available for others to download from their information about files available on other create security issues at NSF? computers. users’ PCs. This uses much more of the When configuring these services, it is computer’s resources, including bandwidth possible to designate as “shared” not only the and processing capability. How do these services function? one folder KaZaA sets up by default, but also The free version of KaZaA is supported by the entire contents of the user’s computer as Peer to peer file transfer services are highly advertising, which appears on the user well as any NSF network drives to which the decentralized, creating a network of linked interface of the program and also causes pop- user has access, to be searchable and users.
    [Show full text]
  • The Edonkey File-Sharing Network
    The eDonkey File-Sharing Network Oliver Heckmann, Axel Bock, Andreas Mauthe, Ralf Steinmetz Multimedia Kommunikation (KOM) Technische Universitat¨ Darmstadt Merckstr. 25, 64293 Darmstadt (heckmann, bock, mauthe, steinmetz)@kom.tu-darmstadt.de Abstract: The eDonkey 2000 file-sharing network is one of the most successful peer- to-peer file-sharing applications, especially in Germany. The network itself is a hybrid peer-to-peer network with client applications running on the end-system that are con- nected to a distributed network of dedicated servers. In this paper we describe the eDonkey protocol and measurement results on network/transport layer and application layer that were made with the client software and with an open-source eDonkey server we extended for these measurements. 1 Motivation and Introduction Most of the traffic in the network of access and backbone Internet service providers (ISPs) is generated by peer-to-peer (P2P) file-sharing applications [San03]. These applications are typically bandwidth greedy and generate more long-lived TCP flows than the WWW traffic that was dominating the Internet traffic before the P2P applications. To understand the influence of these applications and the characteristics of the traffic they produce and their impact on network design, capacity expansion, traffic engineering and shaping, it is important to empirically analyse the dominant file-sharing applications. The eDonkey file-sharing protocol is one of these file-sharing protocols. It is imple- mented by the original eDonkey2000 client [eDonkey] and additionally by some open- source clients like mldonkey [mlDonkey] and eMule [eMule]. According to [San03] it is with 52% of the generated file-sharing traffic the most successful P2P file-sharing net- work in Germany, even more successful than the FastTrack protocol used by the P2P client KaZaa [KaZaa] that comes to 44% of the traffic.
    [Show full text]
  • ARK​ ​​Whitepaper
    ARK Whitepaper ​ ​​ A Platform for Consumer Adoption ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ v.1.0.3 The ARK Crew ARK Whitepaper v.1.0.3 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Table Of Contents ​ ​ ​ ​ Overview………………………………………………………………...……………………………….……………….………………………………………………………….….3 ​ Purpose of this Whitepaper………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..….……….3 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ Why?…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….…………………………………………………….…………..4 ​ ​ ARK…………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….…………………………………………………………………..5 ​ ​ ARK IS………………………………………………………………………………………………....……………….………………………………………………………………..5 ​ ​ ​ ​ ARK: Technical Details……………………………………….…….…..…………………………...……………….………………...…………………………...6 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ - Delegated Proof of Stake…………………………….……………...………………………….……………………………………….………...…...6 ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ - Hierarchical Deterministic (HD) Wallets ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ (BIP32)…………………………………………………….....…………………..…..8 ​ - Fees……………………………………………………………………………………………………………….……………….…...………………………………..……...8 ​ ​​ ​ - ARK Delegates and Delegate Voting.…………………………………………………………………………………...………………….9 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ - Bridged Blockchains (SmartBridges)....................………………………………………………………………….………...…….10 ​ ​​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ - POST ARK-TEC Token Distribution …………………..…………………………………….………………….………..……..…..……….11 ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ ​ - Testnet Release……………………………………………….…………………………………………………………………….………...….....12 ​ ​ ​ And Beyond?…………………………………………………………………….………...……………………………………….………………………...……….…12 ​ ​ ​ ​ Addendum 1: ARK IS…(Cont.)...……..……..…………....…..………...………………………………………...………………………......……12
    [Show full text]
  • [Hal-00744922, V1] Improving Content Availability in the I2P Anonymous
    Improving Content Availability in the I2P Anonymous File-Sharing Environment Juan Pablo Timpanaro, Isabelle Chrisment*, Olivier Festor INRIA Nancy-Grand Est, France *LORIA - ESIAL, Universit´ede Lorraine Email: fjuanpablo.timpanaro, [email protected] Email: [email protected] Abstract. Anonymous communication has gained more and more inter- est from Internet users as privacy and anonymity problems have emerged. Dedicated anonymous networks such as Freenet and I2P allow anony- mous file-sharing among users. However, one major problem with anony- mous file-sharing networks is that the available content is highly reduced, mostly with outdated files, and non-anonymous networks, such as the BitTorrent network, are still the major source of content: we show that in a 30-days period, 21648 new torrents were introduced in the BitTor- rent community, whilst only 236 were introduced in the anonymous I2P network, for four different categories of content. Therefore, how can a user of these anonymous networks access this varied and non-anonymous content without compromising its anonymity? In this paper, we improve content availability in an anonymous environment by proposing the first internetwork model allowing anonymous users to access and share content in large public communities while remaining anonymous. We show that our approach can efficiently interconnect I2P users and public BitTorrent swarms without affecting their anonymity nor their performance. Our model is fully implemented and freely usable. 1 Introduction Peer-to-peer file-sharing has always been one of the major sources of the Internet hal-00744922, version 1 - 24 Oct 2012 traffic, since its early beginnings in 2000. It has been moving from semi-central approaches (eDonkey2000, for example), to semi-decentralized approaches (Kazaa, for instance) to fully decentralized file-sharing architectures (like the KAD net- work).
    [Show full text]
  • Electronic Evidence in Torrent Copyright Cases
    ARTICLE: ELECTRONIC EVIDENCE IN TORRENT COPYRIGHT By Thomas M. Dunlap and CASES Nicholas A. Kurtz Introduction distribute copies of the registered copyrighted work.1 This article explores the methodology behind The Copyright Act further provides that anyone who obtaining electronic evidence of peer-to-peer users violates any of the exclusive rights of the copyright 2 and the use of that evidence in current copyright owner is an infringer of the copyright. infringement actions in United States Federal Courts. Pursuant to the Copyright Act, a plaintiff may elect Over the last year and a half, a number of lawsuits to recover statutory damages instead of actual have been filed on behalf of film copyright holders damages or the infringer’s profits. 17 U.S.C. § 504(c) seeking to enforce their rights against users of peer- provides: “the copyright owner may elect, at any time to-peer (P2P) torrent-type technologies used to before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead unlawfully download and distribute films. of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory At the time of filing their complaints, the plaintiffs damages for all infringements involved in the action, have only been able to identify the Doe defendants by with respect to any one work ... in a sum of not less their internet Protocol (IP) address, the file hash, file than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court title, and the date and time of the alleged considers just.” Section 504(c) further provides that infringement. The only way that the plaintiffs can where an infringement is committed willfully, a court determine the defendants’ actual names is by has the discretion to increase the award of statutory 3 obtaining the information from the internet Service damages to $150,000.
    [Show full text]
  • Downloading Copyrighted Materials
    What you need to know before... Downloading Copyrighted Materials Including movies, TV shows, music, digital books, software and interactive games The Facts and Consequences Who monitors peer-to-peer file sharing? What are the consequences at UAF The Motion Picture Association of America for violators of this policy? (MPAA), Home Box Office, and other copyright Student Services at UAF takes the following holders monitor file-sharing on the Internet minimum actions when the policy is violated: for the illegal distribution of their copyrighted 1st Offense: contents. Once identified they issue DMCA Loss of Internet access until issue is resolved. (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) take-down 2nd Offense: notices to the ISP (Internet Service Provider), in Loss of Internet access pending which the University of Alaska is considered as resolution and a $100 fee assessment. one, requesting the infringement be stopped. If 3rd Offense: not stopped, lawsuit against the user is possible. Loss of Internet access pending resolution and a $250 fee assessment. What is UAF’s responsibility? 4th, 5th, 6th Offense: Under the Digital Millennium Copyright Act and Loss of Internet access pending resolution and Higher Education Opportunity Act, university a $500 fee assessment. administrators are obligated to track these infractions and preserve relevent logs in your What are the Federal consequences student record. This means that if your case goes for violators? to court, your record may be subpoenaed as The MPAA, HBO and similar organizations are evidence. Since illegal file sharing also drains becoming more and more aggressive in finding bandwidth, costing schools money and slowing and prosecuting alleged offenders in criminal Internet connections, for students trying to use court.
    [Show full text]
  • A Study of Peer-To-Peer Systems
    A Study of Peer-to-Peer Systems JIA, Lu A Thesis Submitted in Partial Fulfilment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Philosophy in Information Engineering The Chinese University of Hong Kong August 2009 Abstract of thesis entitled: A Study of Peer-to-Peer Systems Submitted by JIA, Lu for the degree of Master of Philosophy at The Chinese University of Hong Kong in June 2009 Peer-to-peer (P2P) systems have evolved rapidly and become immensely popular in Internet. Users in P2P systems can share resources with each other and in this way the server loading is reduced. P2P systems' good performance and scalability attract a lot of interest in the research community as well as in industry. Yet, P2P systems are very complicated systems. Building a P2P system requires carefully and repeatedly thinking and ex- amining architectural design issues. Instead of setting foot in all aspects of designing a P2P system, this thesis focuses on two things: analyzing reliability and performance of different tracker designs and studying a large-scale P2P file sharing system, Xun- lei. The "tracker" of a P2P system is used to lookup which peers hold (or partially hold) a given object. There are various designs for the tracker function, from a single-server tracker, to DHT- based (distributed hash table) serverless systems. In the first part of this thesis, we classify the different tracker designs, dis- cuss the different considerations for these designs, and provide simple models to evaluate the reliability of these designs. Xunlei is a new proprietary P2P file sharing protocol that has become very popular in China.
    [Show full text]
  • Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew As G
    Loyola University Chicago, School of Law LAW eCommons Faculty Publications & Other Works 2018 Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew aS g Jake Haskell Follow this and additional works at: https://lawecommons.luc.edu/facpubs Part of the Civil Procedure Commons, and the Intellectual Property Law Commons Defense Against the Dark Arts of Copyright Trolling Matthew Sag &Jake Haskell * ABSTRACT: In this Article, we offer both a legal and a pragmaticframework for defending against copyright trolls. Lawsuits alleging online copyright infringement by John Doe defendants have accounted for roughly half of all copyright casesfiled in the United States over the past threeyears. In the typical case, the plaintiffs claims of infringement rely on a poorly substantiatedform pleading and are targeted indiscriminately at noninfringers as well as infringers. This practice is a subset of the broaderproblem of opportunistic litigation, but it persists due to certain unique features of copyright law and the technical complexity of Internet technology. The plaintiffs bringing these cases target hundreds or thousands of defendants nationwide and seek quick settlements pricedjust low enough that it is less expensive for the defendant to pay rather than to defend the claim, regardless of the claim's merits. We report new empirical data on the continued growth of this form of copyright trolling in the United States. We also undertake a detailed analysis of the legal andfactual underpinnings of these cases. Despite theirunderlying weakness, plaintiffs have exploited information asymmetries, the high cost of federal court litigation, and the extravagant threat of statutory damages for copyright infringement to leverage settlementsfrom the guilty and the innocent alike.
    [Show full text]
  • Frequently Asked Questions
    Copyright & File-Sharing FREQUENTLY ASKED QUESTIONS WHAT IS COPYRIGHT? BUT I BOUGHT IT. WHY CAN’T I SHARE IT? WHAT CAN I DO TO AVOID COPYRIGHT Copyright refers to the legal rights creators have There is a difference between using and distributing INFRINGEMENT? over the use, distribution, and reproduction of copyrighted materials. Purchasing songs, movies, or Download content from legitimate sources and do original work (music, movies, software, etc.). software from legitimate sources does not give you the not share copyrighted materials online. Uninstall Copyright infringement is the unlawful use of any right to share these materials over the Internet or make P2P applications (e.g., Popcorn Time, BitTorrent, material protected under copyright law. Common copies for others. When you purchase a Peer-to-Peer Vuze), which may be sharing your files without violations include downloading ‘pirated’ copies of (P2P) program (e.g., Frostwire, BitTorrent, Vuze), you your knowledge. Do not share your NetID and copyrighted materials or sharing files not intended only buy the software, not any files you download or password with anyone. Keep your computer for you to distribute. share using this software. up-to-date with the latest security patches and anti-virus software. HOW DO I KNOW IT’S COPYRIGHTED? DOES UMASS IT MONITOR MY INTERNET Assume all materials are copyright-protected CONNECTION? HOW CAN I LEGALLY DOWNLOAD CONTENT? unless you created them or you have received the No. We do not monitor the contents of your computer Services like Amazon, iTunes, and eMusic offer author’s explicit permission to distribute them. All or issue copyright complaints.
    [Show full text]
  • Charter Spectrum Notice of Copyright Infringement
    Charter Spectrum Notice Of Copyright Infringement Davis educating his chauffeuse nichers thrasonically, but quartered Stanfield never pulverising so loose. Judicial and apprehensible Kenneth braised consumptively and clutch his abstention intractably and tracklessly. Yehudi often discuss spinally when unattainted Foster melodized past and braked her alps. There must be of charter communications operating credit for the transaction in a home where they do next and choose what cox Or abduct any product identification proprietary copyright or other. This website is vast service of Charter Communications Inc andor its respective subsidiaries providing the. While many users panic when receiving infringement notices from their ISP in the majority of cases there cause no need never worry Stopping sharing the lump in longevity usually solves the few and tie no additional sharing takes place to further warnings should be received for legitimate content are least. Alleging copyright infringement against an unnamed defendant Defendant1. And record labels who want over 10000 copyrights is fair clear message to ISPs like. Some policy forms an exclusion for trademark infringement. Recently changed commerce, infringement notice of charter spectrum copyright. Organization violated the Digital Millennium Copyright Act hurt when. Elizabeth Hart et al v Charter Communications Inc et al No. How tough my ISP tell below I'm downloading copyrighted files. Infringement claims continue to it brought frequently in the communications. Time Warner Subpoena Archives Torrent Lawsuit Defense. How to Pirate Software Without been Caught Gizmodo. Looking to a lawsuit attorneys fees logically flow as of infringement, net primarily include bandwidth being accused by them? For Android devices both clients work just got but the notable speed difference between BitTorrent and uTorrent in male former's favor gives it intelligent edge.
    [Show full text]
  • An Architecture for Client Virtualization: a Case Study
    Computer Networks 100 (2016) 75–89 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Computer Networks journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/comnet An architecture for client virtualization: A case study ∗ Syed Arefinul Haque a, Salekul Islam a, , Md. Jahidul Islam a, Jean-Charles Grégoire b a United International University, Dhaka, Bangladesh b INRS-EMT, Montréal, Canada a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t Article history: As edge clouds become more widespread, it is important to study their impact on tradi- Received 30 November 2015 tional application architectures, most importantly the separation of the data and control Revised 17 February 2016 planes of traditional clients. We explore such impact using the virtualization of a Peer- Accepted 18 February 2016 to-Peer (P2P) client as a case study. In this model, an end user accesses and controls the Available online 26 February 2016 virtual P2P client application using a web browser and all P2P application-related control Keywords: messages originate and terminate from the virtual P2P client deployed inside the remote Edge cloud server. The web browser running on the user device only manages download and upload of P2P the P2P data packets. BitTorrent, as it is the most widely deployed P2P platform, is used to BitTorrent validate the feasibility and study the performance of our approach. We introduce a proto- Virtual client type that has been deployed in public cloud infrastructures. We present simulation results Cloud-based server which show clear improvements in the use of user resources. Based on this experience we Web-RTC derive lessons on the challenges and benefits from such edge cloud-based deployments.
    [Show full text]
  • Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering Is Not a Viable Solution for U.S
    Forcing the Net Through a Sieve: Why Copyright Filtering is Not a Viable Solution for U.S. ISPs Mehan Jayasuriya, Jef Pearlman, Robb Topolski, Michael Weinberg, Sherwin Siy www.PublicKnowledge.org i Acknowledgements The authors of this paper would like to thank the following advocates for their assistance and suggestions during the editing process: Public Knowledge president Gigi Sohn, Public Knowledge staff attorney Rashmi Rangnath, Public Knowledge legal consultant Adam Thomas, Public Knowledge intern Katy Tasker and Electronic Frontier Foundation staff technologist Peter Eckersley. ii Table of Contents Executive Summary ................................................................................................................. 1 1. Introduction...................................................................................................................... 2 2. Technological Analysis: The Anatomy of a Copyright Filter ............................................... 7 I. Determining Filter Policy ............................................................................................................................................. 8 A. Strict Policy Definition.....................................................................................................................................................8 B. Permissive Policy Definition..........................................................................................................................................9 II. Identifying Types of Content.....................................................................................................................................10
    [Show full text]