Eclipse Attack
An Eclipse Attack is a kind of cyberattack in which a malevolent actor isolates and monopolizes all of a target node’s connections. Most of its connections are blockchain and distributed systems. By isolating the victim node, the attacker might change its network perspective, leading to security breaches and other crimes. “Eclipsing” means severing the target node’s connection to other valid peers.
How an Eclipse Attack Works
The main tactic is for the attacker to take over all of a target node’s incoming and outgoing connections. This is accomplished by taking advantage of the connection management features of the peer-to-peer network. This is a thorough explanation of how it operates:
Target Identification: A weak node in the network is chosen by the attacker. Mining machines, Bitcoin wallets, and crypto exchange servers are weak devices. They choose nodes with poor connectivity, outdated software, or poor network security like the weakest lock in a vault.
Flooding the Target Node: Attackers start the attack by sending numerous malicious nodes’ connection requests in rapid succession to the target node. The node may get overloaded with requests, giving attackers the ability to control its peer list and stop trustworthy nodes from connecting.
Exploiting Peer Selection Algorithms: Algorithms are used by the majority of peer-to-peer networks to choose and preserve peer connections. By fabricating nodes that seem authentic, attackers take advantage of flaws in these algorithms and make sure the target node primarily connects to these malicious nodes. This frequently necessitates comprehending and forecasting the behaviour of the algorithm.
Maintaining Isolation: Attackers keep an eye on and manage the connections after they have been isolated. To stop reputable nodes from re-establishing communication, this entails routinely renewing connections. To strengthen isolation and control over the node’s communication channels, strategies like IP spoofing and Sybil attacks which create several fictitious identities are employed. Hackers use VPNs or cloud servers to construct phoney nodes with distinct IP addresses that resemble actual nodes and transmit data that appears legitimate in a Sybil attack. In order to prevent the target from reconnecting, these phoney nodes then deny or disregard requests from legitimate nodes.
Manipulating Node Perspective: Attackers can take use of the information that the node obtains when it is isolated. This kind of manipulation may include:
- Supplying inaccurate blockchain information, which makes double-spending attacks possible.
- Postponing blockchain networks’ transaction verifications.
- By misleading the node regarding the network’s condition or the availability of resources, this manipulation may cause data corruption or denial of service in other distributed systems.
- False blockchain blocks, such as “You received 10 Bitcoin!” can be sent by attackers, and the isolated node, which is cut off from its honest peers, will take these as fact.
Execution Stages (Example with Ethereum):
- Pre-Attack Phase: Using Ethereum’s ECDSA public keys, generate millions of Ethereum Node IDs and filter those that are most likely to connect to the destination.
- Isolation Stage: Send a “packet-of-death” to the target Ethereum node using a packet building tool to cause a reboot. Attackers instantly create outbound connections as soon as the node reboots, filling all available connection slots and causing the node to enter an eclipse state. The victim is duped into thinking it is still a part of the wider network.
- Manipulation Stage: To control the blocks and transactions the target sees, filter its view of the blockchain. NTP can potentially be used by attackers to speed up the target’s system clock.
- Post-Attack Phase: Attackers can use the victim’s mining strength to launch selfish or double-spending mining attacks once the target has been eclipsed. Additionally, they can facilitate fraud by deceiving the target into executing fictitious smart contract transactions by using the modified view. In order to disappear, the attackers then disconnect.
Impact of Eclipse Attacks
Eclipse attacks, especially for mobile applications that depend on distributed networks, can have serious repercussions by jeopardizing data integrity, service availability, and general security. This can result in serious financial loss and reputational harm for enterprise-level mobile apps.
Among the harmful results are:
Double-spending: In order to keep honest nodes from discovering the initial transaction, attackers can frequently fabricate a fake transaction and persuade the isolated node that it is legitimate. This makes it possible to spend the same digital assets more than once.
Censorship: By blocking specific transactions from being received or propagated by the isolated node, the attacker can essentially censor them. This could impair network usability by causing transaction failures or delays.
Consensus Disruption: If the attacker changes the isolated node’s perspective, it may fork or otherwise disrupt the consensus process.
Data Integrity Compromise: Data that is distorted or deceptive may be sent to mobile applications that depend on distributed systems for data synchronization and storage. Manipulated transaction data, for instance, may lead to unauthorized transactions or inaccurate account balances in retail banking.
Service Availability Disruption: Key nodes may be isolated by eclipse attacks, which results in a denial of service for those nodes. This implies that essential services, such product listings or payment gateways in an e-commerce app, may stop working, which could result in a loss of revenue and unhappy customers.
Facilitating Fraudulent Activities: Attackers might alter transaction data to carry out double-spending attacks or take advantage of timing flaws to validate fake transactions, which makes financial transaction apps especially vulnerable.
Long-term Security Implications: Attacks that are frequent or persistent reveal systemic flaws, making the application and the infrastructure that supports it targets for additional Attacks.
Facilitating a 51% Attack: Even if the attacker does not possess 51% of the total network hash power, the isolation attained can make a 51% attack more likely by making it easier to manipulate how that particular node perceives and interacts with the network.
Miner Power Disruption: Attackers can increase their own relative hash rate and slant the block mining race by tricking isolated miners into squandering processing power on orphaned blocks blocks that have been solved but rejected by the network.
Smart Contract Manipulation: By altering the target’s view, fraudulent transactions can be carried out in smart contracts that are vulnerable.
Network Instability and Centralization: By overloading the target node and interfering with communication, an eclipse attack can cause network instability by making it challenging to maintain consensus. Centralization, in which a small number of nodes or a single entity take control, can also result from it.
Financial Loss: Due to the possibility of fraudulent transactions, double-spending, and other malevolent behaviours, victims of an eclipse attack may suffer financial losses. This may result in a reduction in the network’s overall value and a loss of trust.
Common Targets
Miners, cryptocurrency exchanges, wallet apps (particularly older versions), individual full nodes, and even recently released, poorly secured Internet of Things devices with blockchain capabilities are all common targets.
Types of Eclipse Attacks
Simple Eclipse Attack: By connecting to a single target node via several phoney nodes, the attacker isolates it with the intention of controlling its transactions and altering its network view.
Sybil Attack: To obtain a majority presence in the network, an attacker generates a large number of fictitious identities (nodes), which facilitates the isolation of particular nodes and the execution of eclipse Attacks.
Network Partitioning: By altering routing, the attacker breaks the network’s topology and isolates the victim node from other nodes. The victim may find it challenging to obtain correct information as a result of the segregated network portions created by this technique.
Double-Spending Eclipse Attack: An advanced variation of the basic eclipse attack, in which the attacker isolates a node and forces it to accept false transactions, enabling the attacker to repeatedly spend digital assets.
Race Condition Eclipse Attack: In order to confuse the target node during transaction processing, the attacker takes advantage of the timing of transaction submissions. The attacker can force the victim to accept false transaction histories by changing the sequence in which transactions are displayed.
Self-Eclipse Attack: In order to manipulate information and gain a competitive edge for example, by claiming incentives for processing transactions the attacker purposefully eclipses their own node.