From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1RbbTG-0005Bf-RJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:21:22 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com; helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-we0-f175.google.com ([74.125.82.175]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1RbbTE-0002F7-KJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:21:22 +0000 Received: by werm13 with SMTP id m13so820193wer.34 for ; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:21:14 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.216.143.66 with SMTP id k44mr703174wej.56.1324056074514; Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:21:14 -0800 (PST) Received: from dvr.localnet (mail.360visiontechnology.com. [92.42.121.178]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id fi11sm15316190wbb.9.2011.12.16.09.21.12 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Fri, 16 Dec 2011 09:21:13 -0800 (PST) From: Andy Parkins To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:21:11 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; ) References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com> <20111216083536.GA20470@ulyssis.org> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2475524.HNXItCd5CJ"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201112161721.11498.andyparkins@gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (andyparkins[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature 0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list X-Headers-End: 1RbbTE-0002F7-KJ Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:21:22 -0000 --nextPart2475524.HNXItCd5CJ Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On 2011 December 16 Friday, Rick Wesson wrote: > I believe that any URI scheme will still leverage DNS and inherit any > base issues you would have with TXT records. I suggest looking at DANE HTTPS takes care of that. > and reviewing their work on hardening certificate (x.509) > infrastructure as your HTTPS scheme will inherit the issues we > currently experience with CAs getting p0wned. This is the only real problem with HTTPS: we would be centralising part of = our=20 otherwise decentralised system. CAs are certainly a risk. However, trust is needed somewhere in the communication. There is no way t= o=20 securely communicate between A and B without the use of some previously=20 trusted secure channel -- in Joe Sixpack's case it's by assuming that the=20 browser he downloaded came with an untainted CA list, and that the CAs are= =20 trustworthy. Neither of which is guaranteed. Until and unless we get PGP= =20 support in browsers, CAs are all that we have. Worrying about CAs misses the point anyway; if we're being that paranoid --= =20 how did A tell B the appropriate alias to use for a lookup? Was that chann= el=20 secure too? I could set up a MITM server that simply looks for the alias=20 "RICKWESSON@bitcoinaliases.org" and rewrites it to=20 "ANDYPARKINS@bitcoinaliases.org". When the answer to that problem is HTTPS= =20 (or some other system that requires a previously authorised secure channel = for=20 transfer of trust), then we're back where we started, and HTTPS is acceptab= le. Andy =2D-=20 Dr Andy Parkins andyparkins@gmail.com --nextPart2475524.HNXItCd5CJ Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part. -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) iEYEABECAAYFAk7rfgcACgkQwQJ9gE9xL21YQgCeNbJlPgB49yyQgRqMplkR3rQU CiUAoNi5M+IzndUkE38wkIsc2gytwOPY =eWzb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --nextPart2475524.HNXItCd5CJ--