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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <brian.erdelyi@gmail.com>) id 1YIN8X-0006kS-Ua
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:58:21 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.216.52 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.216.52; envelope-from=brian.erdelyi@gmail.com;
helo=mail-qa0-f52.google.com;
Received: from mail-qa0-f52.google.com ([209.85.216.52])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YIN8V-0007sG-8l
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:58:21 +0000
Received: by mail-qa0-f52.google.com with SMTP id x12so30722874qac.11
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:58:13 -0800 (PST)
X-Received: by 10.140.35.106 with SMTP id m97mr16029023qgm.34.1422907093595;
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:58:13 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [192.168.1.58] ([64.147.83.112])
by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id y5sm19200715qah.38.2015.02.02.11.58.12
(version=TLSv1 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA bits=128/128);
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 11:58:12 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 8.2 \(2070.6\))
From: Brian Erdelyi <brian.erdelyi@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <F4C9E954-6A29-4A31-B09B-7F0B62270EF8@voskuil.org>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 15:58:11 -0400
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Message-Id: <4B53C1B0-A677-4460-8A69-C45506424D7F@gmail.com>
References: <27395C55-CF59-4E65-83CA-73F903272C5F@gmail.com>
<54CE3816.6020505@bitwatch.co>
<68C03646-02E7-43C6-9B73-E4697F3AA5FD@gmail.com>
<CALkkCJbk0czFj5mdMB6_0+Umw5V-fo-4tdBHgvg92zhyRZWiYQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP0QjPm+TTgV9Fh84vt2zLaGp0R2Wt2ZL2ZXYhxzOFPHVA@mail.gmail.com>
<CALkkCJYuM_T=_nfBOCF4S8XhVecUZA0ug==Y_n+qdFpb-F628g@mail.gmail.com>
<CANEZrP1QZqP6wSxcNJt81c4=xXLJsEsPF-CN71NZzwdOFSpB2A@mail.gmail.com>
<57186618-F010-42E6-A757-B617C4001B5B@gmail.com>
<F4C9E954-6A29-4A31-B09B-7F0B62270EF8@voskuil.org>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.2070.6)
X-Spam-Score: -1.3 (-)
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
(brian.erdelyi[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
0.3 AWL AWL: Adjusted score from AWL reputation of From: address
X-Headers-End: 1YIN8V-0007sG-8l
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal to address Bitcoin malware
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: Mon, 02 Feb 2015 19:58:22 -0000
> Confusing or not, the reliance on multiple signatures as offering =
greater security than single relies on the independence of multiple =
secrets. If the secrets cannot be shown to retain independence in the =
envisioned threat scenario (e.g. a user's compromised operating system) =
then the benefit reduces to making the exploit more difficult to write, =
which, once written, reduces to no benefit. Yet the user still suffers =
the reduced utility arising from greater complexity, while being led to =
believe in a false promise.
Just trying to make sure I understand what you=E2=80=99re saying. Are =
you eluding to that if two of the three private keys get compromised =
there is no gain in security? Although the likelihood of this occurring =
is lower, it is possible.
As more malware targets bitcoins I think the utility is evident. Given =
how final Bitcoin transactions are, I think it=E2=80=99s worth trying to =
find methods to help verify those transactions (if a user deems it to be =
high-risk enough) before the transaction is completed. The balance is =
trying to devise something that users do not find too burdensome.
Brian Erdelyi=
|
