From: Luke Dashjr <luke@dashjr.org>
To: slush <slush@centrum.cz>
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: <CAPS+U9-ze_-gcYh1WNVJ5h8AZ8owoQX=8OUgNcKnaxgvjxZATA@mail.gmail.com>
	<201408072345.45363.luke@dashjr.org>
	<CAJna-HjzMO68KSXYG++X-8vzQCLurkrAAhfrVo9-AbaoYdqZhw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HjzMO68KSXYG++X-8vzQCLurkrAAhfrVo9-AbaoYdqZhw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201408080101.16453.luke@dashjr.org>
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
	<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Miners MiTM
Precedence: list

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