Close Menu

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from FooBar about art, design and business.

    What's Hot

    TON blockchain narrowly avoids crash: Is the TVM vulnerable?

    July 21, 2025

    French minister steps in to help stop crypto kidnappings

    July 21, 2025

    Meme mania, ETF inflows power 86% rally

    July 21, 2025
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram
    Facebook X (Twitter) Instagram LinkedIn
    Ai Crypto TimesAi Crypto Times
    • Altcoins
      • Coinbase
      • Litecoin
      • Bitcoin
    • Ethereum
    • Crypto
    • Blockchain
    • Lithosphere News Releases
    Ai Crypto TimesAi Crypto Times
    Home » Transaction spam attack: Next Steps
    Ethereum

    Transaction spam attack: Next Steps

    Olivia MartinezBy Olivia MartinezJuly 10, 2025No Comments3 Mins Read
    Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Share
    Facebook Twitter LinkedIn Pinterest Email


    Today the network was attacked by a transaction spam attack that repeatedly called the EXTCODESIZE opcode (see trace sample here), thereby creating blocks that take up to ~20-60 seconds to validate due to the ~50,000 disk fetches needed to process the transaction. The result of this was a ~2-3x reduction in the rate of block creation while the attack was taking place; there was NO consensus failure (ie. network fork) and neither the network nor any client at any point fully halted. The attack has since, as of the time of this writing, mostly halted, and the network has for the time being recovered.

    The short-term fix is for users, including miners, enterprise users (including exchanges) and individuals to run geth with the flags:

    –cache 1024 –targetgaslimit 1500000 –gasprice 20000000000

    Or Parity with the flags:

    –cache-size-db 1024 –gas-floor-target 1500000 –gasprice 20000000000 –gas-cap 1500000

    This (i) increases the cache size, reducing the number of disk reads that nodes need to make, and (ii) votes the gas limit down by ~3x, reducing the maximum processing time of a block by a similar factor.

    In the medium term (ie. several days to a week), we are actively working on several fixes for the Go client that should both provide a more stable resolution for the present issue and mitigate the risk of similar attacks, including:

    • A change to miner software that automatically temporarily cuts the gas limit target by 2x when the miner sees a block that takes longer than 5 seconds to process, allowing for adjustments similar to what was coordinated today to happen automatically (see here for a pull request; note that this is a miner strategy change and NOT a soft fork or hard fork)
    • Numerical tweaks to cache settings
    • Adding additional caches
    • Adding an additional cache for EXTCODESIZE specifically (as it is likely that EXTCODESIZE reads are several times slower than other IO-heavy operations since the contracts that are being read are ~18 KB long)
    • An on-disk cache of state values that allows them to be more quickly (ie. O(log(n)) speedup) accessed

    We are also exploring the option of replacing the leveldb database with something more performant and optimized for our use case, though such a change would not come soon. The Parity team is working on their own performance improvements.

    In the longer term, there are low-level protocol changes that can also be explored. For example it may be wise to add a feature to Metropolis to increase the gas costs of opcodes that require reads of account state (SLOAD, EXTCODESIZE, CALL, etc), and especially read operations that read external accounts; increasing the gas cost of all of these operations to at least 500 would likely be sufficient, though care would need to be taken to avoid breaking existing contracts (eg. simultaneously implementing EIP 90 would suffice).

    This would put a much lower upper bound on the maximum number of bytes that a transaction may read, increasing safety against all potential attacks of this kind, and reducing the size of Merkle proofs and hence improving security for both light clients and sharding as a side effect. At present, we are focusing on the more immediate software-level changes; however, in the long term such proposals should be discussed and contract developers should be aware that changes of this sort may take place.




    Source link

    Share. Facebook Twitter Pinterest LinkedIn Tumblr Email
    Olivia Martinez

    Related Posts

    Ethereum price forecast as ETH dominance jumps to 11.5%

    July 21, 2025

    Altcoins today: CROSS, ECHO rally amid trading competition; SharpLink becomes top corporate ETH holder

    July 21, 2025

    Ethereum price forecast as SharpLink buys another 5,188 ETH

    July 21, 2025
    Leave A Reply Cancel Reply

    Our Picks
    Stay In Touch
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Pinterest
    • Instagram
    • YouTube
    • Vimeo
    Don't Miss

    TON blockchain narrowly avoids crash: Is the TVM vulnerable?

    Crypto July 21, 2025

    TON blockchain security firm TonBit announced that it averted a major vulnerability on the TON…

    French minister steps in to help stop crypto kidnappings

    July 21, 2025

    Meme mania, ETF inflows power 86% rally

    July 21, 2025

    CHART: Trump’s World Liberty Financial portfolio is a mixed bag

    July 21, 2025

    Subscribe to Updates

    Get the latest creative news from SmartMag about art & design.

    X (Twitter) Instagram YouTube LinkedIn
    Our Picks

    Hyperliquid leaderboards confuse traders as HYPE hits all-time high

    May 27, 2025

    Swarm alpha public pilot and the basics of Swarm

    July 10, 2025

    LA wildfires threaten crypto companies in southern California

    July 2, 2025
    Recent Posts

    TON blockchain narrowly avoids crash: Is the TVM vulnerable?

    July 21, 2025

    French minister steps in to help stop crypto kidnappings

    July 21, 2025

    Meme mania, ETF inflows power 86% rally

    July 21, 2025

    Type above and press Enter to search. Press Esc to cancel.