![]() ![]() The exact number of users is hard to pinpoint when the underlying protocol is typically permissionless. Another potential attack vector could target the accounts registered on node software, where private keys might be at risk due to insecure passphrases, or authentication bypasses.Īuditing decentralized infrastructure is hard. As a consequence of this vulnerability, a 51% attack might become much more feasible for an attacker, especially one with access to on-demand cloud resources. For example, think along the lines of a DoS vulnerability that could significantly reduce the number of nodes in the Ethereum P2P network. Were these attacks to succeed, efforts to secure the Ethereum protocol and smart contracts could be in vain, and potentially all funds would be put at risk. This begs the question: Are there vulnerabilities further down the hood?Īttacks on the P2P layer and the node software itself are juicy targets for adversaries as they are a crucial point of infrastructure in the overall system. ![]() With the number of security-focused companies, the number of eyes looking at Ethereum’s code is increasing by the week. From smart contract code to the Ethereum base protocol: quality assurance, audits, and rigorous testing are on their way to becoming the norm. Security in the Ethereum ecosystem is multi-faceted. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |