path: root/70/1ff7942dd1b954f9f0d4ce48d897459fc20d5e

Return-Path: <andreas@antonopoulos.com>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
	[172.17.192.35])
	by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 33EEAB62
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 26 May 2017 06:52:29 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-oi0-f52.google.com (mail-oi0-f52.google.com
	[209.85.218.52])
	by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7545C161
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Fri, 26 May 2017 06:52:28 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-oi0-f52.google.com with SMTP id h4so2502087oib.3
	for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
	Thu, 25 May 2017 23:52:28 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=antonopoulos.com; s=antonopoulos;
	h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to
	:cc; bh=1nUSjHIY5trW2dKoLiTfjcfgcY3fs0nuve9jgdVkkn8=;
	b=ME2YqtU9ZPoDQYqOl0XOHzEowXuqYOQarP0qa0LEWTdCBn+SA+eUEf3E1GF7TG56sr
	yAOuOHVrBOL4ASV5nRhsTu8SHpAVPEi+mCi2kCnq3VQAnX6BPuwlp0vy2P6IxtTUEstg
	SNVG2agwLfCSOXL+RpCH+5kfOgP0yMQXzBHt0=
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
	h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date
	:message-id:subject:to:cc;
	bh=1nUSjHIY5trW2dKoLiTfjcfgcY3fs0nuve9jgdVkkn8=;
	b=Nrj+AZgntNH4VtF1wJDnG5Fx+8zItyOZDVrLqquV4P62+eSjglyJ+eVYq4IAl+tHWc
	idulTBES3YIy/OEWVjO/WbVBBieYahtSyZWvWlzqWNDpHLPQN8QAAe5kYxBjSPbjP8dI
	MwPOAUJG9en5DQVunHlmKiDJ9LyqWI3csVcCmaocJFpKHDiJunPJKKdRFr86VPKwQqo8
	3X8X56gMdrKRNVde97MWJ1Ju1IBDdtVsoUOtWPi5PlrNALGnZH8sZW5Q/8yZgBuGfFp+
	5n0Mo11zL+lIKbtRFP7HMOWHmRcLAypnzTXTC6KAfAMbF0Jc+oalQxWOwMLjwU9obZVt
	KYjw==
X-Gm-Message-State: AODbwcCD0YKbDmqZYGtvMForB7Dp/EzRqsdiY4KO4fPpWZByiAB+ATHw
	cGQ7/zhIMq0LlNI3ao/cAOrIIIieh1AX
X-Received: by 10.202.79.7 with SMTP id d7mr177888oib.55.1495781547533; Thu,
	25 May 2017 23:52:27 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.182.111.103 with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 23:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.182.111.103 with HTTP; Thu, 25 May 2017 23:52:26 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <D0299438-E848-4696-B323-8D0E810AE491@gmail.com>
References: <D0299438-E848-4696-B323-8D0E810AE491@gmail.com>
From: "Andreas M. Antonopoulos" <andreas@antonopoulos.com>
Date: Fri, 26 May 2017 16:52:26 +1000
Message-ID: <CAFmyj8zNkPj3my3CLzkXdpJ1xkD0GQk8ODg09qYnnj_ONGUtsQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: Cameron Garnham <da2ce7@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a113d720ecd87b5055067c733"
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.3 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED,
	HTML_MESSAGE, RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM,
	T_DKIM_INVALID autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
	smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Fri, 26 May 2017 13:59:31 +0000
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Emergency Deployment of SegWit as a partial
 mitigation of CVE-2017-9230
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol 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: Fri, 26 May 2017 06:52:29 -0000

--001a113d720ecd87b5055067c733
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I rarely post here, out of respect to the mailing list. But since my name
was mentioned...

I much prefer Gregory Maxwell's proposal to defuse covert ASICBOOST (only)
with a segwit-like commitment to the coinbase which does not obligate
miners to signal Segwit or implement Segwit, thus disarming any suspicion
that the issue is being exploited only to activate Segwit.

This proposal is unnecessarily conflating two contentious issues and will
attract criticism of self serving motivation.

Politicising CVE  is damaging to the long term bitcoin development and to
its security. Not claiming that is the intent here, but the damage is done
by the mere appearance of motive.



On May 26, 2017 16:30, "Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev" <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Hello Bitcoin-Dev,
>
> CVE-2017-9230 (1) (2), or commonly known as =E2=80=98ASICBOOST=E2=80=99 i=
s a severe (3)
> (4) and actively exploited (5) security vulnerability.
>
> To learn more about this vulnerability please read Jeremy Rubin=E2=80=99s=
 detailed
> report:
> http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf
>
> Andreas Antonopoulos has an excellent presentation on why asicboost is
> dangerous:
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dt6jJDD2Aj8k
>
> In decisions on the #bitcoin-core-dev IRC channel; It was proposed,
> without negative feedback, that SegWit be used as a partial-mitigation of
> CVE-2017-9230.
>
> SegWit partially mitigates asicboost with the common reasonable assumptio=
n
> that any block that doesn=E2=80=99t include a witness commit in it's coin=
base
> transaction was mined using covert asicboost.  Making the use of covert
> asicboost far more conspicuous.
>
> It was also proposed that this partial mitigation should be quickly
> strengthened via another soft-fork that makes the inclusion of witness
> commits mandatory, without negative feedback.
>
> The security trade-offs of deploying a partial-mitigation to CVE-2017-923=
0
> quickly vs more slowly but more conservatively is under intense debate.
> The author of this post has a strong preference to the swiftest viable
> option.
>
> Cameron.
>
>
> (1) CVE Entry:
> https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=3D+CVE-2017-9230
>
> (2) Announcement of CVE to Mailing List:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
> 2017-May/014416.html
>
> (3) Discussion of the perverse incentives created by 'ASICBOOST' by Ryan
> Grant:
>  https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
> 2017-May/014352.html
>
> (4) Discussion of ASICBOOST's non-independent PoW calculation by Tier
> Nolan:
>  https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
> 2017-May/014351.html
>
> (5) Evidence of Active Exploit by Gregory Maxwell:
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/
> 2017-April/013996.html
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--001a113d720ecd87b5055067c733
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"auto">I rarely post here, out of respect to the mailing list. B=
ut since my name was mentioned...=C2=A0<div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto">I much prefer Gregory Maxwell&#39;s proposal to defuse covert ASI=
CBOOST (only) with a segwit-like commitment to the coinbase which does not =
obligate miners to signal Segwit or implement Segwit, thus disarming any su=
spicion that the issue is being exploited only to activate Segwit.</div><di=
v dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">This proposal is unnecessarily c=
onflating two contentious issues and will attract criticism of self serving=
 motivation.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=3D"auto">Politicisin=
g CVE =C2=A0is damaging to the long term bitcoin development and to its sec=
urity. Not claiming that is the intent here, but the damage is done by the =
mere appearance of motive.=C2=A0</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div dir=
=3D"auto"><br></div></div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br><div class=3D"gmai=
l_quote">On May 26, 2017 16:30, &quot;Cameron Garnham via bitcoin-dev&quot;=
 &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@l=
ists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br type=3D"attribution"><blockquote=
 class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc soli=
d;padding-left:1ex">Hello Bitcoin-Dev,<br>
<br>
CVE-2017-9230 (1) (2), or commonly known as =E2=80=98ASICBOOST=E2=80=99 is =
a severe (3) (4) and actively exploited (5) security vulnerability.<br>
<br>
To learn more about this vulnerability please read Jeremy Rubin=E2=80=99s d=
etailed report:<br>
<a href=3D"http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf" rel=3D"n=
oreferrer" target=3D"_blank">http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//<wbr>public/pdfs/=
Asicboost.pdf</a><br>
<br>
Andreas Antonopoulos has an excellent presentation on why asicboost is dang=
erous:<br>
<a href=3D"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Dt6jJDD2Aj8k" rel=3D"noreferrer=
" target=3D"_blank">https://www.youtube.com/watch?<wbr>v=3Dt6jJDD2Aj8k</a><=
br>
<br>
In decisions on the #bitcoin-core-dev IRC channel; It was proposed, without=
 negative feedback, that SegWit be used as a partial-mitigation of CVE-2017=
-9230.<br>
<br>
SegWit partially mitigates asicboost with the common reasonable assumption =
that any block that doesn=E2=80=99t include a witness commit in it&#39;s co=
inbase transaction was mined using covert asicboost.=C2=A0 Making the use o=
f covert asicboost far more conspicuous.<br>
<br>
It was also proposed that this partial mitigation should be quickly strengt=
hened via another soft-fork that makes the inclusion of witness commits man=
datory, without negative feedback.<br>
<br>
The security trade-offs of deploying a partial-mitigation to CVE-2017-9230 =
quickly vs more slowly but more conservatively is under intense debate.=C2=
=A0 The author of this post has a strong preference to the swiftest viable =
option.<br>
<br>
Cameron.<br>
<br>
<br>
(1) CVE Entry:<br>
<a href=3D"https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvename.cgi?name=3D+CVE-2017-9230"=
 rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>cv=
ename.cgi?name=3D+CVE-2017-<wbr>9230</a><br>
<br>
(2) Announcement of CVE to Mailing List:<br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May=
/014416.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfound=
ation.<wbr>org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/<wbr>2017-May/014416.html</a><br>
<br>
(3) Discussion of the perverse incentives created by &#39;ASICBOOST&#39; by=
 Ryan Grant:<br>
=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/20=
17-May/014352.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linu=
xfoundation.<wbr>org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/<wbr>2017-May/014352.html</a><br=
>
<br>
(4) Discussion of ASICBOOST&#39;s non-independent PoW calculation by Tier N=
olan:<br>
=C2=A0<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/20=
17-May/014351.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linu=
xfoundation.<wbr>org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/<wbr>2017-May/014351.html</a><br=
>
<br>
(5) Evidence of Active Exploit by Gregory Maxwell:<br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-Apr=
il/013996.html" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfou=
ndation.<wbr>org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/<wbr>2017-April/013996.html</a><br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org">bitcoin-dev@lists.=
<wbr>linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.<wbr>org=
/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-<wbr>dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--001a113d720ecd87b5055067c733--