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
|
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 <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>) id 1Qu4e9-0003Rg-En
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:36:41 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.214.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.214.47; envelope-from=joel.kaartinen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-bw0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-bw0-f47.google.com ([209.85.214.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Qu4e7-0004g2-3N
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 15:36:41 +0000
Received: by bkbzu17 with SMTP id zu17so2437108bkb.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.204.168.129 with SMTP id u1mr442126bky.89.1313681792683;
Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:36:32 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [91.153.53.68] (a91-153-53-68.elisa-laajakaista.fi
[91.153.53.68])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x19sm769617bkt.9.2011.08.18.08.36.25
(version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Thu, 18 Aug 2011 08:36:28 -0700 (PDT)
From: Joel Joonatan Kaartinen <joel.kaartinen@gmail.com>
To: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0AgUL+rphhB8YUVHDGJnc0TmaYG=kjt7Pz1yrwLjBbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CABsx9T0AgUL+rphhB8YUVHDGJnc0TmaYG=kjt7Pz1yrwLjBbDQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Date: Thu, 18 Aug 2011 18:36:23 +0300
Message-ID: <1313681783.14523.79.camel@mei>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
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
(joel.kaartinen[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
X-Headers-End: 1Qu4e7-0004g2-3N
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] From the forums: one-confirmation attack
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, 18 Aug 2011 15:36:41 -0000
On Thu, 2011-08-18 at 10:00 -0400, Gavin Andresen wrote:
> The lessons are "don't accept 1-confirmation transactions" and "try
> to be well-connected."
>
> But maybe the deeper lesson is "don't trust information you get from
> only one peer." Or maybe "watch for peers that are trying to fool
> you."
This particular attack seems quite dependant on the target not using the
deposit Tx as input. I believe this whole class of attacks become
ineffective if each account has it's own separate wallet.
Also, receiving a block with a transaction that hasn't been broadcast to
the network is in itself quite suspect. Are there cases where that
happens legitimately? Perhaps in such a case, don't treat the block it
came in as a confirmation at all. Instead, start counting from the next
one.
- Joel
|
