1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
|
Return-Path: <adam@cypherspace.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3CBD14A6
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:46:56 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: from auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mout.perfora.net (mout.perfora.net [74.208.4.196])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A90D4175
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:46:55 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qk0-f170.google.com ([209.85.220.170]) by
mrelay.perfora.net (mreueus001) with ESMTPSA (Nemesis) id
0M1HiQ-1Z0Qs33PQm-00tDpB for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 15:46:47 +0200
Received: by qkdg63 with SMTP id g63so4491021qkd.0
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.55.31.83 with SMTP id f80mr59779999qkf.2.1438177606991; Wed,
29 Jul 2015 06:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.96.226.68 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:46:46 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CA+w+GKSNw90FHRKQYvNVNQ=qdCgUL_vAyR8uZ8CJBN3t_A6Zsw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <55B78F56.3080802@gmail.com> <55B79146.70309@gmail.com>
<CA+w+GKSNw90FHRKQYvNVNQ=qdCgUL_vAyR8uZ8CJBN3t_A6Zsw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 06:46:46 -0700
Message-ID: <CALqxMTHG3aN3gxMBVoviktc0NeO3P6aqzO6vjKZ97Yp+7dQDOw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Adam Back <adam@cypherspace.org>
To: Mike Hearn <hearn@vinumeris.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
X-Provags-ID: V03:K0:H9nHGeVeJw2K3d7QlgkNn5oWRfN1DTZijS5LOPTOF3djthh0joM
XN8bcWVUgaovdFyjeTCLX9IE5O40bue9ih1/BemQ4tItrWuXI2RuhK44wjnACD9rhkMDH7t
VNfzhYCi3dlNJYqk9frNjQvZ5bGLf0FYNwB2fY/eJCofFNoDq1F2x6kio7/O5890XKSOMqL
v8Bjz8Jk1Lf5g5jaba4+g==
X-UI-Out-Filterresults: notjunk:1;V01:K0:uOAOrSEtiDk=:5fl5tH1pv719muoGXLdG2Q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X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Disclosure: consensus bug indirectly solved by
BIP66
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Development Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 13:46:56 -0000
I believe the idea is to replace openSSL with
https://github.com/bitcoin/secp256k1 that Pieter and Greg spent quite
some time rigorously testing and have at this point better confidence
in than *SSL libraries.
I think the lessons learned from it as concluded by Pieter and Greg
are that openSSL and derivatives are not focussed on consensus
consistency, such that even if actively maintained and security
reviewed, their own bug fixes can break bitcoin.
Adam
On 29 July 2015 at 06:41, Mike Hearn via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> This solved the vulnerability, and opens the door to using non-OpenSSL
>> signature verification in the near future.
>
>
> Great work!
>
> It also means the remaining usages of OpenSSL can be safely replaced with
> something like LibreSSL or (perhaps better) BoringSSL.
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
|
