From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VOnWo-00018M-Mg for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:45:10 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; helo=mail-bk0-f47.google.com; Received: from mail-bk0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VOnWn-0005SE-FJ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:45:10 +0000 Received: by mail-bk0-f47.google.com with SMTP id mx12so2175880bkb.6 for ; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:45:03 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.205.65.78 with SMTP id xl14mr27180952bkb.1.1380109502870; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:45:02 -0700 (PDT) Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com Received: by 10.204.237.74 with HTTP; Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:45:02 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <521298F0.20108@petersson.at> Date: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:45:02 +0200 X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2UzFsEBleQx_8xflDrbHRJmhJJk Message-ID: From: Mike Hearn To: Andreas Schildbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=bcaec5430d4eabacd604e733c80d 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: 1VOnWn-0005SE-FJ Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol: BIP 70, 71, 72 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: Wed, 25 Sep 2013 11:45:10 -0000 --bcaec5430d4eabacd604e733c80d Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Andreas Schildbach wrote: > Why do you think that? Of course, I would skip the certificate, as its > unnecessary if you see your partner in person. > OK, it might fit if you don't use any of the features the protocol provides :) You can try it here: https://bitcoincore.org/~gavin/createpaymentrequest.php > HTTPS trust is utterly broken unless you fix it by adding the > certificate or a fingerprint to the QR code. > It's not "utterly broken", that's over-dramatic. It's just the best that can be done with todays technology. I wrote about the SSL PKI and how it's being upgraded here: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=300809.0 If you're thinking about governments and so on subverting CA's, then there is a plan for handling that (outside the Bitcoin world) called certificate transparency which is being implemented now. Now when you are getting a QR code from the web, it's already being served over HTTPS. So if you're up against an attacker who can break a CA in order to steal your money, then you already lose, the QRcode itself as MITMd. In the Bluetooth case we might have to keep the address around and use it to do ECDHE or something like that. The current BT support doesn't need that because it's just blasting out a tx, the entire protocol is write only. Once it's reading data as well then it'll need a custom security layer. --bcaec5430d4eabacd604e733c80d Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Wed, Sep 25, 2013 at 1:33 PM, Andreas Schildbach <= andreas@schildbach.de> wrote:
<= div class=3D"gmail_quote">
Why do you think that? Of course, I woul= d skip the certificate, as its
unnecessary if you see your partner in person.

<= /div>
OK, it might fit if you don't use any of the features the pro= tocol provides :) You can try it here:

=C2=A0
HTTPS trust is utterly = broken unless you fix it by adding the
certificate or a fingerprint to the QR code.

It's not "utterly broken", that's over-dramatic.= It's just the best that can be done with todays technology. I wrote ab= out the SSL PKI and how it's being upgraded here:


If you're thinking about governments and so on subvert= ing CA's, then there is a plan for handling that (outside the Bitcoin w= orld) called certificate transparency which is being implemented now.

Now when you are getting a QR code from the web, it'= ;s already being served over HTTPS. So if you're up against an attacker= who can break a CA in order to steal your money, then you already lose, th= e QRcode itself as MITMd.

In the Bluetooth case we might have to keep the address= around and use it to do ECDHE or something like that. The current BT suppo= rt doesn't need that because it's just blasting out a tx, the entir= e protocol is write only. Once it's reading data as well then it'll= need a custom security layer.

=C2=A0
--bcaec5430d4eabacd604e733c80d--