Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Sanity checking for stored values #188

Closed
subwolf opened this issue Dec 12, 2015 · 3 comments
Closed

Sanity checking for stored values #188

subwolf opened this issue Dec 12, 2015 · 3 comments
Assignees
Labels

Comments

@subwolf
Copy link

subwolf commented Dec 12, 2015

I've seen thousands of hits from a single IP requesting to store a value, what this is or why I don't know. Is someone trying to send bad data to clients, or see if they can break them?

Log showing value store crush: http://arthur.sdo-srv.com/ds-ouch.log

@super3 super3 added the bug label Dec 12, 2015
@subwolf
Copy link
Author

subwolf commented Dec 15, 2015

Had first occasion of a client appearing to crash, in that it froze in the middle of listing peers, don't know exact point because a malicious peer sent bad data that messed up the display again.

@subwolf
Copy link
Author

subwolf commented Dec 20, 2015

See http://pastebin.com/raw/p5txjnWe - got stuck in the middle of an INFO statement, discovered at 22:15, 45 minutes later, the client was likely down during that period and losing uptime. Didn't think to query the driveshare status list, will do next time. If this happens and I'm away for several hours this will be a big problem.

You say use StorjWatch? Unreliable at this time, get false positives a few times daily.

@super3 super3 added bug and removed bug labels Dec 28, 2015
@super3
Copy link
Contributor

super3 commented Dec 28, 2015

@subwolf Organizing the bugs. This is valid but belongs in https://github.com/Storj/storjnode. Please reopen there.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants