Security Concerns in Blockchains Although blockchains have been hailed as effective replacements for traditional data storage systems, thanks to their approach to transparency, they have introduced a new variety of risks security, as this article will demonstrate. section. Blockchain transparency is an example of these risks. One of the most obvious security vulnerabilities that Bitcoin, a monetary implementation of blockchain, presents is the unencrypted nature of its wallet. Indeed, the nature of its opening could attract malicious individuals with the necessary resources to hack the wallet. Say no to plagiarism. Get a Custom Essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get Original Essay As implausible as it may seem, an implementation of a Bitcoin-like blockchain known as Ether has was targeted in 2016 and defrauded of $50 million (ENISA). Additionally, data wallets can be accessed via a backup of the old version of the wallet (Kiviat). Using Apple Time Machine, a facility that allows such backups to drain current data wallets through the use of backups, allows hackers to acquire personal data in a blockchain implementation. Indeed, changing a wallet password does not reflect the cancellation of previous passwords (Sompolinsky and Zohar). Additionally, Interpol also demonstrated in 2015 how Bitcoin could be misused by introducing unrelated data into an existing transaction (Zyskind and Nathan). Another security issue presented by blockchains is consensus hijacking, also known as a Sybil attack. Blockchains prevent monopolistic control of the network in order to add security measures. However, an attacker using the Sybil attack and having more than half the power of the network can modify blockchain transactions by making the transactions appear valid (Bissias, Ozisik and Levine) (ENISA). With such monopolistic control, the attacker may have the power to reverse sent transactions, exposing other users to the risk of double-spend attacks. It can even prevent user transactions from being confirmed, thereby reducing their power to access their preferred data. Once connected to the attacker, users can be tricked into only connecting to Sybil nodes, thereby predisposing them to attacks such as double spending. Blockchain sidechains present the other source of security vulnerability in the technology. Sidechains are vulnerable when used for pegging (ENISA). This is when information between one section of a blockchain and another is exchanged through a proxy address that carries the actual address of the transaction section. If a user of a chain exchanges information with a fraudulent proxy address from a non-existent blockchain section, there is no way to recover the information (Kiviat). Additionally, other users transacting with the fraudulent sidechain will realize its maliciousness and dump their information on the parent chain, putting strain on the entire system. Another security issue concerns authorized channels. In such regulated chains, the blockchain regulator can be manipulated to inadvertently direct a hack. Indeed, the regulator has additional capacities in the network. In such scenarios, the chain security risks are equivalent to those of centrally administered networks (ENISA). Another.