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
95
96
97
98
99
100
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <swansontec@gmail.com>) id 1YJVRu-0002sk-O7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 05 Feb 2015 23:03:02 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.45 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.45; envelope-from=swansontec@gmail.com;
helo=mail-yh0-f45.google.com;
Received: from mail-yh0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YJVRt-0001cm-Vi
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Thu, 05 Feb 2015 23:03:02 +0000
Received: by mail-yh0-f45.google.com with SMTP id a41so297281yho.4
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Thu, 05 Feb 2015 15:02:56 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.236.7.70 with SMTP id 46mr128981yho.138.1423177376581; Thu,
05 Feb 2015 15:02:56 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.170.168.5 with HTTP; Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:02:56 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <C28CD881-DAB8-4EDB-B239-7D45A825EAF0@voskuil.org>
References: <CABdy8DKS4arkkCLGC=66SUJm5Ugib1EWP7B6MkQRX1k-yd3WBw@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3v=ySS4gragaWuBMWi_swocRRRq_kw2edo6+9kifgrFQ@mail.gmail.com>
<54D3D636.1030308@voskuil.org>
<CANEZrP3ekWQWeV=Yw_E=n0grORBLHaXLUh3w0EFQdz=HsjWvZw@mail.gmail.com>
<279489A5-1E46-48A2-8F58-1A25821D4D96@gmail.com>
<CANEZrP3VAWajxE=mNxb6sLSQbhaQHD=2TgRKvYrEax2PAzCi2A@mail.gmail.com>
<6AEDF3C4-DEE0-4E31-83D0-4FD92B125452@voskuil.org>
<CABdy8DLRGyy5dvmVb_B3vao7Qwz-zdAC3-+2nJkg9rSsU6FLbw@mail.gmail.com>
<C28CD881-DAB8-4EDB-B239-7D45A825EAF0@voskuil.org>
Date: Thu, 5 Feb 2015 15:02:56 -0800
Message-ID: <CABjHNoTmj=wfjRwApZCJJTDhhwePh=VtXkJN0e3t1uQqmeMu6Q@mail.gmail.com>
From: William Swanson <swansontec@gmail.com>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(swansontec[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: 1YJVRt-0001cm-Vi
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
Paul Puey <paul@airbitz.co>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for P2P Wireless (Bluetooth LE)
transfer of Payment URI
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, 05 Feb 2015 23:03:02 -0000
On Thu, Feb 5, 2015 at 2:10 PM, Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org> wrote:
> A MITM can receive the initial broadcast and then spoof it by jamming the
> original. You then only see one.
You are right, of course. There is no way to make Bluetooth 100%
secure, since it is an over-the-air technology. You could try securing
it using a CA or other identity server, but now you've excluded ad-hoc
person-to-person payments. Plus, you need an active internet
connection to reach the CA.
You can try using proximity as a substitute for identity, like
requiring NFC to kick-start the connection, but at that point you
might as well use QR codes.
This BIP is not trying to provide absolute bullet-proof security,
since that's impossible given the physical limitations of the
Bluetooth technology. Instead, it's trying to provide the
best-possible security given those constraints. In exchange for this,
we get greatly enhanced usability in common scenarios.
There are plenty of usable, real-world technologies with big security
holes. Anybody with lock-picking experience will tell you this, but
nobody is welding their front door shut. The ability to go in and out
is worth the security risk.
Bluetooth payments add a whole new dimension to real-world Bitcoin
usability. Do we shut that down because it can't be made perfect, or
do we do the best we can and move forward?
-William
|
