Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1YHuyf-0003lU-00 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 13:54:17 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.216.174 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.216.174; envelope-from=brian.erdelyi@gmail.com; helo=mail-qc0-f174.google.com; Received: from mail-qc0-f174.google.com ([209.85.216.174]) by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1YHuye-0002xo-6r for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 13:54:16 +0000 Received: by mail-qc0-f174.google.com with SMTP id s11so26880015qcv.5 for ; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 05:54:10 -0800 (PST) X-Received: by 10.224.53.130 with SMTP id m2mr32046969qag.13.1422798850792; Sun, 01 Feb 2015 05:54:10 -0800 (PST) Received: from [192.168.1.58] ([64.147.83.112]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id k10sm15544209qas.29.2015.02.01.05.54.09 (version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128); Sun, 01 Feb 2015 05:54:09 -0800 (PST) Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\)) From: Brian Erdelyi In-Reply-To: Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 09:54:08 -0400 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <45C925F1-8872-4441-AEC8-B8AFAAE93D24@gmail.com> References: <27395C55-CF59-4E65-83CA-73F903272C5F@gmail.com> <1348028F-26F8-42CB-9859-C9CB751BF0C9@gmail.com> <88211D58-DE9D-4B4A-B3A5-2EEFDFC5E02B@gmail.com> To: =?utf-8?Q?Martin_Habov=C5=A1tiak?= X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6) X-Spam-Score: -1.1 (-) 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 (brian.erdelyi[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 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 0.5 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address X-Headers-End: 1YHuye-0002xo-6r Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to address Bitcoin malware 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: Sun, 01 Feb 2015 13:54:17 -0000 > BIP70 is quite safe agains MitB. If user copies URL belonging to other > merchant, he would see the fact after entering it into his wallet > application. The only problem is, attacker can buy from the same > merchant with user's money. (sending him different URL) This can be > mitigated by merchant setting "memo" to the description of the basket > and some user info (e.g. address to which goods are sent). I think BIP 70 does a good job at verifying where the payment request = came from. I=E2=80=99m not convinced this is the same as verifying the = transaction (ideally OOB). > But if whole computer is compromised, you're already screwed. Trezor > should help, but I'm not sure if it supports BIP70. The reason for OOB verification is if the entire computer is = compromised. Again, this may only be possible with a trusted = intermediary or a web wallet. Brian Erdelyi=