Tight Bound on Mobile Byzantine Agreement

  • François Bonnet
  • Xavier Défago
  • Thanh Dang Nguyen
  • Maria Potop-Butucaru
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8784)


This paper investigates the problem of Byzantine Agreement in a synchronous system where malicious agents can move from process to process, corrupting their host. Earlier works on the problem are based on biased models which, as we argue in the paper, give an unfair advantage either to the correct processes or to the adversary controlling the malicious agents. Indeed, the earlier studies of the problem assume that, after a malicious agent has left a process, that process, said to be cured, is able to instantly and accurately detect the fact that it was corrupted in earlier rounds, and thus can take local actions to recover a valid state (Garay’s model). We found no justification for that assumption which clearly favors correct processes. Under that model, an algorithm is known for n > 4t, where n is the number of processes and t the maximum number of malicious agents. The tightness of the bound is unknown. In contrast, more recent work on the problem remove the assumption on detection and assume instead that a malicious agent may have left corrupted messages in the send queue of a cured process. As a result, the adversary controlling the malicious agents can corrupt the messages sent by cured processes, as well as those sent by the newly corrupted ones, thus doubling the number of effective faults. Under that model, which favors the malicious agents, the problem can be solved if and only if n > 6t. In this paper, we refine the latter model to avoid the above biases. While a cured process may send messages (based on a state corrupted by the malicious agent), it will behave correctly in the way it sends those messages: i.e., send messages according to the algorithm. Surprisingly, in this model we could derive a new non-trivial tight bound for Byzantine Agreement. We prove that at least 5t + 1 processors are needed in order to tolerate t mobile Byzantine agents and provide a time optimal algorithm that matches this lower bound, altogether with a formal specification of the problem.


Correct Process Synchronous System Arbitrary Network Faulty Process Mobile Fault 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Banu, N., Souissi, S., Izumi, T., Wada, K.: An improved byzantine agreement algorithm for synchronous systems with mobile faults. International Journal of Computer Applications 43(22), 1–7 (2012)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bonnet, F., Défago, X., Nguyen, T.D., Potop-Butucaru, M.: Tight bound on mobile byzantine agreement. Research Report IS-RR-2014-004, Japan Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (JAIST) (May 2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bracha, G.: An o(log n) expected rounds randomized byzantine generals protocol. Journal of the ACM 34(4), 910–920 (1987)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Buhrman, H., Garay, J.A., Hoepman, J.H.: Optimal resiliency against mobile faults. In: Proceedings of the 25th International Symposium on Fault-Tolerant Computing (FTCS 1995), pp. 83–88 (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Correia, M., Veronese, G.S., Lung, L.C.: Asynchronous byzantine consensus with 2f + 1 processes. In: Proceedings of the 25th ACM Symposium on Applied Computing, SAC 2010, pp. 475–480 (2010)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Daliot, A., Dolev, D.: Self-stabilizing Byzantine agreement. In: Proc. 25th ACM Symp. on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 2006), pp. 143–152 (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dolev, D.: The byzantine generals strike again. Journal of Algorithms 3(1), 14–30 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Dolev, D., Fischer, M.J., Fowler, T.R., Lynch, N.A., Strong, H.R.: An efficient algorithm for byzantine agreement without authentication. Information and Control 52(3), 257–274 (1982)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Feldman, P., Micali, S.: An optimal probabilistic protocol for synchronous byzantine agreement. SIAM Journal on Computing 26(4), 873–933 (1997)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fischer, M.J., Lynch, N.A., Paterson, M.S.: Impossibility of distributed consensus with one faulty process. Journal of the ACM 32(2), 374–382 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Garay, J.A.: Reaching (and maintaining) agreement in the presence of mobile faults. In: Tel, G., Vitányi, P. (eds.) WDAG 1994. LNCS, vol. 857, pp. 253–264. Springer, Heidelberg (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lamport, L., Shostak, R., Pease, M.: The byzantine generals problem. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems 4(3), 382–401 (1982)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Martin, J.P., Alvisi, L.: Fast byzantine consensus. IEEE Transactions on Dependable and Secure Computing 3(3), 202–215 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Okun, M., Barak, A.: Efficient algorithms for anonymous byzantine agreement. Theory of Computing Systems 42(2), 222–238 (2008)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ostrovsky, R., Yung, M.: How to withstand mobile virus attacks (extended abstract). In: Proceedings of the 10th Annual ACM Symposium on Principles of Distributed Computing (PODC 1991), pp. 51–59 (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Pease, M., Shostak, R., Lamport, L.: Reaching agreement in the presence of faults. Journal of the ACM 27(2), 228–234 (1980)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Raynal, M.: Fault-tolerant Agreement in Synchronous Message-passing Systems. Synthesis Lectures on Distributed Computing Theory. Morgan & Claypool Publishers (2010)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Reischuk, R.: A new solution for the byzantine generals problem. Information and Control 64(1-3), 23–42 (1985)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Santoro, N., Widmayer, P.: Time is not a healer. In: Cori, R., Monien, B. (eds.) STACS 1989. LNCS, vol. 349, pp. 304–313. Springer, Heidelberg (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Santoro, N., Widmayer, P.: Majority and unanimity in synchronous networks with ubiquitous dynamic faults. In: Pelc, A., Raynal, M. (eds.) SIROCCO 2005. LNCS, vol. 3499, pp. 262–276. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sasaki, T., Yamauchi, Y., Kijima, S., Yamashita, M.: Mobile byzantine agreement on arbitrary network. In: Baldoni, R., Nisse, N., van Steen, M. (eds.) OPODIS 2013. LNCS, vol. 8304, pp. 236–250. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Schmid, U., Weiss, B., Keidar, I.: Impossibility results and lower bounds for consensus under link failures. SIAM Journal on Computing 38(5), 1912–1951 (2009)MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • François Bonnet
    • 1
  • Xavier Défago
    • 1
  • Thanh Dang Nguyen
    • 1
  • Maria Potop-Butucaru
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Information ScienceJAISTJapan
  2. 2.Université Pierre & Marie Curie (UPMC)Paris 6France

Personalised recommendations