[KirinDave]

But since the content can include timing and date information, it's pretty straightforward to work around this. IPFS bridges to HTTP, but is fundamentally a very different protocol that gives very different guarantees. Application developers need to recognize and mitigate these.

[vertex-four]

Being able to recognise the protocol's limitations and guarantees depends on those limitations and guarantees, as well as best practices for developing applications using the protocol, being openly documented.

[KirinDave]

Are you suggesting that IPFS doesn't document the behavior of IPNS?

[vertex-four]

Indeed I am - can you find me a document which describes whether IPNS is or is not currently vulnerable to replay attacks, in which scenarios its assumptions are broken, and/or best practices for handling any shortcomings of IPNS?

[KirinDave]

This isn't even a well-formed question: IPNS clearly documents what it does do. It provides superior guarantees to cached HTTP.

What's more, calling a node fault in a distributed quorum a "replay attack" suggests that application logic is hosted on IPFS. Since it is not and cannot be and redundancy is ultimately the responsibility of the storing agent, this seems like at best a misapplication of the term and at worst a disingenuous scare attempt.

In either event; IPNS is still considered a second tier, less complete that other "beta" parts of the protocol. It's not as experimental as pubflood, but less reliable than pinning.

It's all a moot point anyways, since IPNS is so slow as to be unusable in all but the least interesting cases anyways.

[vertex-four]

There is no clear specification of IPNS in the specs repo, never mind documentation in any of the repos I browsed. So no, it doesn't document anything useful to a user or application developer interested in knowing what they have to watch out for, including malicious nodes presenting outdated information.

While replay attack might not be exactly the correct terminology (although I think it is), the result is that you cannot trust any information pointed to by an IPNS record to be up to date. There's fairly trivial attacks I can think of that revolve around this - for example, if a git repository is hosted in IPFS with an IPNS record linking to it, you might actually get an older version of the code with known security flaws. This just isn't something you think about if you were using a more traditionally hosted git repository hosted on a trusted developer's server (or someone they trust, etc).

[KirinDave]

> This just isn't something you think about if you were using a more traditionally hosted git repository hosted on a trusted developer's server (or someone they trust, etc).

You don't until github accidentally rolls back your content, which they have done.

Unlike the github scenario, particularly popular content will have more than 1 node relaying it so you can form a consensus. It's also the case that only 1 value can be at consensus in the GHT at any given time, so the proper content node is verifiable from many content sources.

Now, do the clients DO this? No. They don't.

But in general this is so far down the list of IPNS concerns as to read odd. They have bigger fixes to make besides concerns about highly visible attacks like this.