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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1WMSzx-0005mp-PI
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 09 Mar 2014 01:57:53 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.215.53 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.215.53; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-la0-f53.google.com;
Received: from mail-la0-f53.google.com ([209.85.215.53])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1WMSzw-0005jL-Tz
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 09 Mar 2014 01:57:53 +0000
Received: by mail-la0-f53.google.com with SMTP id b8so3744421lan.26
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sat, 08 Mar 2014 17:57:46 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.152.4.68 with SMTP id i4mr17493553lai.8.1394330266352; Sat,
08 Mar 2014 17:57:46 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.112.189.164 with HTTP; Sat, 8 Mar 2014 17:57:46 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <201403081934.12035.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <CANEZrP25N7W_MeZin_pyVQP5pC8bt5yqJzTXt_tN1P6kWb5i2w@mail.gmail.com>
<53174F20.10207@gmail.com> <201403081934.12035.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Sat, 8 Mar 2014 17:57:46 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgTAwsXBZ-guU32KC4RL0ZKwmqW-TqqDS=qswSb88mgRMA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
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
(gmaxwell[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: 1WMSzw-0005jL-Tz
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] New side channel attack that can recover
Bitcoin keys
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: Sun, 09 Mar 2014 01:57:53 -0000
On Sat, Mar 8, 2014 at 11:34 AM, Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org> wrote:
> On Wednesday, March 05, 2014 4:21:52 PM Kevin wrote:
>> How can we patch this issue?
> No need, it is not an issue for Bitcoin.
> Properly used, there is only ever one signature per public key.
Security shouldn't depend on perfect use. There are many things that
result in multiple key use: Bitcoin address authentication (something
which the pool you created uses!), someone spamming you with multiple
payments to a common address which you didn't solicit (what, are you
just going to ignore the extra coins?), ... or just practical
considerations=E2=80=94 I note the mining pool you founded continually pays=
a
single address for 'fall back' payments when it can't pay in the
coinbase transact, I know you consider that a bug, but its the reality
today.
Most security issues aren't the result of one problem but several
problems combined, so it's important to make each layer strong even if
the strength shouldn't be important due to proper use in other layers.
Fortunately, libsecp256k1 has a nearly constant time/constant memory
access multiply for signing which should reduce exposure substantially
(and is generally built in a way that reduces vulnerabilities).
|
