From: "Jeremy Spilman" <jeremy@taplink.co>
To: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: [Bitcoin-development] Positive and negative feedback on certificate validation errors
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2014 22:26:39 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <op.xb05iptvyldrnw@laptop-air> (raw)
We currently have subtle positive feedback of a signed payment request in
the form of the green background. Unsigned requests simply show up without
the green background, as well as requests which provide a certificate but
have a missing or invalid signature.
There's a open bug (#3628) and pull request (#3684) to provide negative
feedback (yellow background) for a missing or invalid signature, but it
seems like there's some debate on whether bitcoind should do that...
If an attacker can avoid the negative feedback by just stripping the
signature and setting pki_type to none, then arguably there's no security
benefit by singling out badly signed payment requests from unsigned
payment requests.
So perhaps the root problem is that the positive feedback (green
background) is not strong enough to make its absence highly conspicuous to
the end user.
As an aside, how could we go about implementing the equivalent of HTTP
Strict Transport Security for payment protocol to prevent this trivial
signature stripping attack? Is this a possible extension field merchants
are interested in?
next reply other threads:[~2014-03-01 6:26 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 10+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-03-01 6:26 Jeremy Spilman [this message]
2014-03-01 7:26 ` [Bitcoin-development] Positive and negative feedback on certificate validation errors Wladimir
2014-03-01 7:50 ` Jeremy Spilman
2014-03-02 10:37 ` Mike Hearn
2014-03-02 7:52 ` [Bitcoin-development] Payment Protocol Hash Comments Jeremy Spilman
2014-03-02 8:44 ` Mike Hearn
2014-03-02 8:52 ` Drak
2014-03-02 10:39 ` Mike Hearn
2014-03-03 12:39 ` Drak
2014-03-02 18:18 ` [Bitcoin-development] Positive and negative feedback on certificate validation errors Troy Benjegerdes
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=op.xb05iptvyldrnw@laptop-air \
--to=jeremy@taplink.co \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox