diff options
| author | Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> | 2013-04-25 12:52:33 +0200 |
|---|---|---|
| committer | bitcoindev <bitcoindev@gnusha.org> | 2013-04-25 10:52:39 +0000 |
| commit | 52ed61bea208e97fdbe01c694303656c9bf10e5e (patch) | |
| tree | 5e0a3997d49a5fd26068533072d1bc3a231f9782 | |
| parent | 1dce8a8868f8b13c10fbc49ed05e0f831844f720 (diff) | |
| download | pi-bitcoindev-52ed61bea208e97fdbe01c694303656c9bf10e5e.tar.gz pi-bitcoindev-52ed61bea208e97fdbe01c694303656c9bf10e5e.zip | |
Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cold Signing Payment Requests
| -rw-r--r-- | d3/4f9e9747a4f7873907fae1905652016894c40a | 123 |
1 files changed, 123 insertions, 0 deletions
diff --git a/d3/4f9e9747a4f7873907fae1905652016894c40a b/d3/4f9e9747a4f7873907fae1905652016894c40a new file mode 100644 index 000000000..14e98ef2d --- /dev/null +++ b/d3/4f9e9747a4f7873907fae1905652016894c40a @@ -0,0 +1,123 @@ +Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] + helo=mx.sourceforge.net) + by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) + (envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1UVJn5-0000K8-Lg + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:52:39 +0000 +Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com + designates 209.85.219.46 as permitted sender) + client-ip=209.85.219.46; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com; + helo=mail-oa0-f46.google.com; +Received: from mail-oa0-f46.google.com ([209.85.219.46]) + by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) + (Exim 4.76) id 1UVJn4-0003Gx-S1 + for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; + Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:52:39 +0000 +Received: by mail-oa0-f46.google.com with SMTP id k3so2654783oag.19 + for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>; + Thu, 25 Apr 2013 03:52:33 -0700 (PDT) +MIME-Version: 1.0 +X-Received: by 10.60.179.42 with SMTP id dd10mr20453654oec.51.1366887153540; + Thu, 25 Apr 2013 03:52:33 -0700 (PDT) +Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com +Received: by 10.76.167.169 with HTTP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 03:52:33 -0700 (PDT) +In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP1343gX-utnbO16Z6axMDMmvYpiGXW8_Vc-yec03ip=1g@mail.gmail.com> +References: <mailman.38128.1366844895.4905.bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> + <20130425095855.GA30535@crunch> + <CANEZrP3EhS3-HnPT_exc9MjZn-ywZggSzqSHPzHU5J2EZuLQtg@mail.gmail.com> + <20130425102853.GA31573@crunch> + <CANEZrP1343gX-utnbO16Z6axMDMmvYpiGXW8_Vc-yec03ip=1g@mail.gmail.com> +Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 12:52:33 +0200 +X-Google-Sender-Auth: WKDV6G9_GZkT3BboxQBL9To6v7g +Message-ID: <CANEZrP340hjkf8CyUnGBznRdGJWfxoAYmFOuTGbT8=pg2DNA+g@mail.gmail.com> +From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net> +To: timo.hanke@web.de +Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e011615883c269404db2d3771 +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: 1UVJn4-0003Gx-S1 +Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cold Signing Payment Requests +X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net +X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 +Precedence: list +List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe> +List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development> +List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net> +List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help> +List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>, + <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe> +X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 10:52:39 -0000 + +--089e011615883c269404db2d3771 +Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 + +> +> So I don't see how you can have a payment request signing key that's safer +> than an SSL key. As Jeremy notes, CAs will not issue you intermediate +> certificates. Perhaps if one existed that would do the necessary things for +> a reasonable price you could indeed give yourself an offline intermediate +> cert and then use that to sign one cert for SSL and another for payment +> request signing, but as far as anyone is aware no such CA exists. +> + +Re-reading what I wrote, it's not really clear. + +Even if possible, the intermediate cert setup still wouldn't work for most +merchants but I didn't make that clear. It might work for EV certs. For +most sites that are just DV there's nothing you can do because CA +verification is just "do you control this domain name". So if your web +server is compromised it's game over. They can issue themselves a new cert, +and what's more, unless wallets are checking revocation lists you can't +stop them signing as you until their certificate expires. + +The process for getting an EV cert is harder and there, an offline +restricted intermediate cert might make more sense because you could have a +compromised SSL key whilst not having a compromised identity, but it's +still not possible with todays CA policies. + +--089e011615883c269404db2d3771 +Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 +Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable + +<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo= +ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c= +cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div= + class=3D"gmail_quote"> +<div>So I don't see how you can have a payment request signing key that= +'s safer than an SSL key. As Jeremy notes, CAs will not issue you inter= +mediate certificates. Perhaps if one existed that would do the necessary th= +ings for a reasonable price you could indeed give yourself an offline inter= +mediate cert and then use that to sign one cert for SSL and another for pay= +ment request signing, but as far as anyone is aware no such CA exists.<br> +</div></div></div></div></blockquote><div style><br></div><div style>Re-rea= +ding what I wrote, it's not really clear.</div><div style><br></div><di= +v style>Even if possible, the intermediate cert setup still wouldn't wo= +rk for most merchants but I didn't make that clear. It might work for E= +V certs. For most sites that are just DV there's nothing you can do bec= +ause CA verification is just "do you control this domain name". S= +o if your web server is compromised it's game over. They can issue them= +selves a new cert, and what's more, unless wallets are checking revocat= +ion lists you can't stop them signing as you until their certificate ex= +pires.</div> +<div style><br></div><div style>The process for getting an EV cert is harde= +r and there, an offline restricted intermediate cert might make more sense = +because you could have a compromised SSL key whilst not having a compromise= +d identity, but it's still not possible with todays CA policies.</div> +</div></div></div> + +--089e011615883c269404db2d3771-- + + |