Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of
	nilsschneider.net designates 217.11.48.105 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=217.11.48.105; envelope-from=nils@nilsschneider.net;
	helo=ngcobalt05.manitu.net; 
Message-ID: <4E61531E.3050109@nilsschneider.net>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2011 00:05:18 +0200
From: Nils Schneider <nils@nilsschneider.net>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US;
	rv:1.9.2.18) Gecko/20110617 Thunderbird/3.1.11
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
References: <4aa4401704cc1e7a1665971b79684a83.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
	<d6060149473a3262940e624e13e6e061.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
In-Reply-To: <d6060149473a3262940e624e13e6e061.squirrel@webmail.xs4all.nl>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] BitCoin and MinorFs/AppArmor
Precedence: list

MinorFs sounds like an interesting concept and but wallet encryption
(already being tested and close to release) is a simpler solution for
end-users.

Would MinorFs help securing the wallet on a server, maybe even a
(insecure) VPS?

Can it work without changes to Bitcoin? If not, what is the minimal
amount of changes needed?

Is there any guarantee it will never corrupt the wallet?

What would be the proper way to do backups?

On 02.09.2011 22:32, Rob Meijer wrote:
> Given that there was not a single response to my post, I gather there is
> no to little interest in an updated MinorFs that could be used by bitcoin
> on systems that support AppArmor (Ubuntu and OpenSuse).
> 
> Nevertheless I've put down the initial set of specs for a rewrite of
> MinorFs for if anyone would like to comment on them to make a future match
> with Bitcoin more likely, I'm open to all sugestions:
> 
> http://minorfs.polacanthus.net/wiki/Concepts_for_MinorFs2
> 
> On Fri, August 26, 2011 09:48, Rob Meijer wrote:
>> A few years ago I wrote a least authority based set of filesystems named
>> MinorFs that worked closely together with AppArmor (suse/ubuntu) to give '
>> pseudo persistent processes' their own private but decomposable and
>> delegatable piece of filesystem storage:
>>
>> http://www.linuxjournal.com/magazine/minorfs
>> http://www.capibara.com/blog/2011/05/25/taming-mutable-state-for-file-systems/
>>
>> Currently there is only one perfect fit for MinorFs and that's the stack
>> AppArmor/MinorFs/E-language-persistent-application. There are some close
>> fits like running ssh without a passphrase (
>> http://minorfs.polacanthus.net/wiki/Ssh_private_keys_without_passphrase )
>> but these require lots of manual fiddling by the user to get working. The
>> ssh trick would probably work with bitcoin, but as you can see from the
>> link above, it would be rather cumbersome.
>>
>> I am trying to get specs together for rewriting MinorFs (in Python) in a
>> way that would make it easy and natural for application developers that
>> want their application to be able to protect user data (like bitcoin
>> wallets) from mallware running under the same uid as that user.
>>
>> Currently minorfs granularity is hard fixed to that of the 'pseudo
>> persistent process', and that granularity is determined as described in
>> the following link:
>>
>> http://minorfs.polacanthus.net/wiki/Pseudo_persistent_process
>>
>> When using pseudo persistent processes, you basically end up with
>> file-system storage that follows almost all of the modeling principles of
>> the object capability model. This is great when designing a least
>> authority program from scratch and writing it in the (object capability)
>> e-language using its persistence facilities.
>>
>> Given however that I don't expect bitcoin, openssh, chrome, firefox, or
>> any other application that would benefit from what MinorFs provides to be
>> rewritten in E, it seems like the next version of MinorFs should give up
>> on the purity of its least authority model, and take an approach that
>> better suits common development languages and practices.
>>
>> With bitcoin being a project that could benefit most from what MinorFs has
>> to offer, I would like to ask bitcoin developers to think about what
>> attributes from the current granularity level (pseudo persistent process)
>> should be kept, what attributes should be dropped, and what properties
>> should be added to arrive at an 'id' that is the best fit for granularity
>> of persistent private storage for bitcoin.
>>
>> I really want to accommodate bitcoin developer needs in this, so all input
>> that helps me help you guys to get the next MinorFs version to accommodate
>> your needs to a level that code to use MinorFs where available can be
>> added to bitcoin, would be extremely welcome.
>>
>> Let me know what you think,
>>
>> Rob
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> EMC VNX: the world's simplest storage, starting under $10K
>> The only unified storage solution that offers unified management
>> Up to 160% more powerful than alternatives and 25% more efficient.
>> Guaranteed. http://p.sf.net/sfu/emc-vnx-dev2dev
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bitcoin-development mailing list
>> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Special Offer -- Download ArcSight Logger for FREE!
> Finally, a world-class log management solution at an even better 
> price-free! And you'll get a free "Love Thy Logs" t-shirt when you
> download Logger. Secure your free ArcSight Logger TODAY!
> http://p.sf.net/sfu/arcsisghtdev2dev
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>