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-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1VphaH-0000uo-0m
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:51:57 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.192.175 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.192.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pd0-f175.google.com;
Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1VphaG-0001fc-Bp
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:51:56 +0000
Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w10so3746040pde.6
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 08:51:50 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.66.14.41 with SMTP id m9mr16326489pac.123.1386521510445;
Sun, 08 Dec 2013 08:51:50 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.70.81.170 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 08:51:50 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CANAnSg1DiPLqAGW=2Q0zoLjupn8wvYuhhH8HgvBM0d=5uKJNXA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <52A3C8A5.7010606@gmail.com>
<1795f3067ba3fcdd0caf978cc59ff024.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net>
<CANAnSg1DiPLqAGW=2Q0zoLjupn8wvYuhhH8HgvBM0d=5uKJNXA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 08:51:50 -0800
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgREE01pVgesjWa6Y51EXzvtot=fRTGf9L7QL+o8N_SMLA@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Drak <drak@zikula.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
0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked.
See
http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block
for more information. [URIs: zikula.org]
-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
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [209.85.192.175 listed in list.dnswl.org]
X-Headers-End: 1VphaG-0001fc-Bp
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Dedicated server for bitcoin.org,
your thoughts?
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, 08 Dec 2013 16:51:57 -0000
On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Drak <drak@zikula.org> wrote:
> There is really no excuse for not using an SSL certificate. Without one i=
t
> would be trivial for an attacker to change the contents of the page via
> MITM.
Having control of the site gives you a cert regardless, as several CAs
will issue a cert to anyone who can make a http page appear at a
specific URL at the domain when requested via the CA over http.
It really is darn near pretextual security in this kind case=E2=80=94 only
protecting you against attacks near the client, not the server=E2=80=94 but=
as
Wladimir says, it's expected and I don't see how it would be a harm.
The revocation argument is somewhat interesting, especially since any
such site should use HSTS or otherwise a downgrade attack is trivial.
|
