问题
At the risk of sounding naive, I ask myself "Is a validating notary necessary?", given all the issues with it - transaction and dependencies leak, exposure of state model, to name a few. The answer I hear has something to do with the potential attack where a dishonest node tries to steal someone else's asset. For example, in a legitimate transaction, partyA sold partyB some asset S subject to a Move contract. Immediately afterwards, partyA creates a self-signed transaction that transfers S back to himself subject to a dummy contract in a bogus flow that does not even run the ledger transaction verify(). But when he calls FinaltyFlow to satisfy the simple notary to commit the transaction on the ledger, it will fail the verifyContracts() because S appoints to the Move contract which should say owner partyB must sign the bogus transaction. So that does not convince me of the need for a validating notary. Apparently, I must have missed something. Can someone enlighten me?
Thanks.
\Sean
回答1:
As you say, the advantage of the validating notary is that it prevents a malicious party from "wedging" a state - that is, creating an invalid transaction that consumes an unconsumed state that they are aware of. Although the transaction is invalid, the non-validating notary would not be aware of this, and would mark the state as spent.
You're correct that this invalid transaction would fail the FinalityFlow's call to verifyContracts(). However, we cannot force a malicious node to use FinalityFlow to send something to the notary. If the malicious node was sufficiently motivated, they could build the invalid transaction hash by hand and send that to the notary directly, for example.
However, note that in the non-validating notary case, there are still multiple layers of protection against wedging:
- The malicious party has to be aware of the state(s) they want to wedge. Since information in Corda is only distributed on a need-to-know basis, the node would only be aware of a small subset of unconsumed states
- If the state is wedged by accident, the node can show the invalid transaction to the notary. Upon seeing that the transaction is invalid, the notary will mark the re-mark the state as unconsumed
- As Corda is a permissioned network, the notary can keep a record of the legal identity of everyone who submits a transaction. If a malicious node is submitting invalid transactions to consume states, their identity will be known, and the dispute can be resolved outside of the platform, based on the agreements governing participation in the network
On the other hand, SGX addresses the data leak issue associated with validating notaries. If the validation of the transaction occurs within an SGX enclave, the validating notary gains no information about the contents of the transaction they are validating.
Ultimately, the choice between validating and non-validating notaries comes down to the threat model associated with a given deployment. If you are using Corda in a setting where you are sure the participants won't deliberately change their node's code or act maliciously, then a validating notary is not needed.
But if you assume somebody WILL try to cheat and would be willing to write their own code to do so, then a validating notary provides an extra layer of protection.
So Corda provides choices:
- Choose to reveal more to a notary cluster if you trust the participants relatively less...
- Choose to reveal less to a notary cluster if you consider the risk of revealing too much to the notaries to be the bigger problem
(and use SGX if you're paranoid about everybody!)
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/47321363/do-we-really-need-a-notary-that-validates