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

Want a more efficient method of authentication #164

Open
satel-global opened this issue Oct 10, 2024 · 5 comments
Open

Want a more efficient method of authentication #164

satel-global opened this issue Oct 10, 2024 · 5 comments
Labels
feature request New feature or request

Comments

@satel-global
Copy link

The current authentication method inevitably has some performance problems in scenarios with a large number of users
Are you considering using other methods (such as RSA) in a future release to verify the user so that no matter how many users there are, it won't affect performance

@enfein enfein added the feature request New feature or request label Oct 11, 2024
@enfein
Copy link
Owner

enfein commented Oct 11, 2024

The ask is valid, but are you facing real performance problems?

A benchmark shows in my cheap VPS, it can handle 25k authentications computing per second. We also have the caching of authentication cipher blocks. So in real world I think the current implementation is able to scale up to 100k users per VPS.

@satel-global
Copy link
Author

I'm just worried about this, I haven't put it into a real project yet, I'll test it later.
There was another problem, I had to group the users because when handling too many users I got the following error
set mita server config failed: rpc error: code = ResourceExhausted desc = grpc: received message larger than max (4977817 vs. 4194304)

@enfein
Copy link
Owner

enfein commented Oct 12, 2024

@satel-global I opened bug #166 to track the grpc error.

@satel-global
Copy link
Author

Thanks

@satel-global
Copy link
Author

Another concern I have is that if the attacker sends a large number of verification requests, it will immediately overload the server. Shadowsocks has the same problem.

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

No branches or pull requests

2 participants