From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1XFYYf-00006p-1l for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:01:25 +0000 X-ACL-Warn: Received: from zinan.dashjr.org ([192.3.11.21]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1XFYYd-0002ZN-Cp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 01:01:24 +0000 Received: from ishibashi.localnet (unknown [IPv6:2001:470:5:265:be5f:f4ff:febf:4f76]) (Authenticated sender: luke-jr) by zinan.dashjr.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 3AB6010836AE; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 00:52:18 +0000 (UTC) From: Luke Dashjr To: slush Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 01:01:15 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.15.5-gentoo; KDE/4.12.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <201408072345.45363.luke@dashjr.org> In-Reply-To: X-PGP-Key-Fingerprint: E463 A93F 5F31 17EE DE6C 7316 BD02 9424 21F4 889F X-PGP-Key-ID: BD02942421F4889F X-PGP-Keyserver: hkp://pgp.mit.edu MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-15" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <201408080101.16453.luke@dashjr.org> X-Spam-Score: -0.7 (/) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -0.7 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1XFYYd-0002ZN-Cp Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net" Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Miners MiTM 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, 08 Aug 2014 01:01:25 -0000 On Friday, August 08, 2014 12:29:31 AM slush wrote: > AFAIK the only protection is SSL + certificate validation on client side. > However certificate revocation and updates in miners are pain in the ass, > that's why majority of pools (mine including) don't want to play with > that... Certificate validation isn't needed unless the attacker can do a direct MITM at connection time, which is a lot harder to maintain than injecting a client.reconnect. This, combined with your concern about up to date certs/revokes/etc, is why BFGMiner defaults to TLS without cert checking for stratum. Luke