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 1XFghO-0005dG-OS for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:42:58 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.218.49; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-oi0-f49.google.com; Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49]) by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1XFghN-0006BZ-Sz for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:42:58 +0000 Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id u20so3435415oif.8 for ; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.60.158.8 with SMTP id wq8mr29000656oeb.40.1407490972398; Fri, 08 Aug 2014 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <201408072345.45363.luke@dashjr.org> Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 11:42:52 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2ctu7aWlnn599iKF8edu2A2-gzA Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: slush Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6ac486f3d5a05001b0787 X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/) 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 (mh.in.england[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message 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 X-Headers-End: 1XFghN-0006BZ-Sz 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 09:42:58 -0000 --047d7bd6ac486f3d5a05001b0787 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 > > 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... > Why would miners need updates? If they implement the standard SSL infrastructure you can change certificates and keys without needing to update miners. Besides, when it comes to financial services SSL is essential, I'm kind of surprised it wasn't already used everywhere. I wouldn't use an online bank that didn't support SSL, I would see it as a a sign of serious problems. Heck I wouldn't even use webmail that didn't support SSL these days. --047d7bd6ac486f3d5a05001b0787 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
AFAIK the only protection is SS= L + certificate validation on client side. However certificate revocation a= nd updates in miners are pain in the ass, that's why majority of pools = (mine including) don't want to play with that...

Why would miners need updates? If they imp= lement the standard SSL infrastructure you can change certificates and keys= without needing to update miners.

Besides, when i= t comes to financial services SSL is essential, I'm kind of surprised i= t wasn't already used everywhere. I wouldn't use an online bank tha= t didn't support SSL, I would see it as a a sign of serious problems. H= eck I wouldn't even use webmail that didn't support SSL these days.=


--047d7bd6ac486f3d5a05001b0787--