search

bitshares / bitshares-ui

Fully featured Graphical User Interface / Reference Wallet for the BitShares Blockchain
https://wallet.bitshares.org
MIT License
517 stars 570 forks source link

Permissions enhancement - Committee invoked security measure #2417

Open TechsUsInc opened 5 years ago

TechsUsInc commented 5 years ago

Is your feature request related to a problem? Please describe. Given the recent Random-k.com compromise of accounts, I think that it is possible to increase security measures within the client using global listeners.

A clear and concise description of what you want to happen.

  1. If someone blacklists another account, nothing more happens (current state-P2P)

  2. If someone blacklists another account, and 2 more (or 1 more-consensus) holders blacklist the same said account, committee members are alerted in some way in addition to delegated Committee member blacklisting said account upon verification of attack/compromise. (auto-initiated memo using listeners?)

  3. If someone blacklists another account, 2 more holders blacklist, Committee members are notified, a single delegated Committee member blacklists PLUS another Committee member blacklisting said account results in auto-lock out of attackers account until further investigation from HacktheDEX team (again, by auto-memo to delegated HacktheDEX team).

Describe alternatives you've considered Additionally and if possible or feasible, if all accounts were scanned for double key entries (active and memo) they could be notified (via memo) informing them that they need to change their keys and how to do so. Eventual goal of no more accounts with double key for active and memo.

A fair system of 1) account holder blacklisting + 2) Committee member blacklisting + 3) Witness member blacklisting may be more ideal and collusion free but it would also present Witness exposure which would not be ideal.

Additional content http://docs.pybitshares.com/en/latest/_modules/bitshares/notify.html#Notify

bangzi1001 commented 5 years ago

This issue not relevant to UI.

Based on my observation, most if not all committee members have no intention to block any accounts.

TechsUsInc commented 5 years ago

Based on my observation, most if not all committee members have no intention to block any accounts.

With that said then, it is likely that this protocol would rarely if ever have a need to be implemented, but should the need arise, it would already be in place. I agree that most if not all Committee members would/should not block any accounts, but that was the current resolution for CALLCNY05MARCH19 ATM iirc and random-k accessed a large number of accounts which is still ongoing to my knowledge.

The protocol could even run without Committee/Witness intervention at all or only as needed. I.e. If XXX number of users blacklist another user within XXX time, auto-lock the account with a notification to the user (Committee/Witnesses) that they have been temp disabled and after XXX time, the blacklists lift for a chance at redemption, then the process repeats. Repeated offenses could then be escalate with more sever results. It makes sense that a person carries a tire tool in their car, or carries renters insurance not because they will/should ever use it, but because in the event that they have a flat tire, they are prepared to change it and move forward. If a persons dwelling burns down because a neighbor's live Christimas tree caught fire from the Christmas tree lights and burned down the whole building they carry renters insurance to protect themselves from damages incurred either by themselves or another party.