docs: add abort and mailce scenarios to security doc #15
Conversation
There was a problem hiding this comment.
ACK.
I think , we should also add links for IT's in the respective sections.
There , how the fees balances work are mentioned in those IT's as done in citadel-tech/coinswap#355
| This is the situation where a Maker prematurely drops connections after doing initial protocol handshake. | ||
| This should not necessarily disrupt the round, the Taker will try to find more makers in his address book to carry on as usual. | ||
| The Taker will mark this Maker as "bad" and will not swap this maker again. | ||
| In case the Taker doesn't find any more makers, it will abort the swap and reclaim his funds via the contract transaction and so will the other makers. |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Currently we have three scenarios for case 2 -> and I observed that Taker would scout for a new maker to continue with ongoing coinswap only when Taker has not spend its funding txes yet.
If Taker broadcasted its funding txes and Maker does these cheats -> then taker simply broadcast its contract tx.
SO IMO, it would be better to mention about it.
| If the Taker doesn't come back within timeout, the Makers broadcasts the contract transactions and reclaims their funds via timelock. | ||
| The Taker after coming live again will see unfinished coinswaps in his wallet. He can reclaim his funds via broadcasting his contract transactions and claiming via timelock. | ||
|
|
||
| ### 2. Maker Drops Before Setup |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I guess , it would be better to mention all possible cases under this scenario , as similarly done for Maker drop After Setup.
|
|
||
| A denial of service (DoS) attack is a type of attack where a malicious actor floods the network with a large number of requests, causing the network to become overwhelmed and unresponsive. In the context of Coinswap, a DoS attack could disrupt the swap process and prevent legitimate users from participating in the network. | ||
| ## Aborts | ||
|
|
||
| ## Distributed Denial of Service (DDoS) attacks |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Is there any reason for not mentioning about DOS attack?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Defending against DoS would be a part of the extended infrastructure(setting up reverse proxies, etc) and not a part of the protocol itself.
No description provided.