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
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-3.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bip@mattwhitlock.name>) id 1WTxYM-0006SJ-Jv
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:00:22 +0000
X-ACL-Warn:
Received: from qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.96])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1WTxYL-00066n-LZ for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:00:22 +0000
Received: from omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net ([76.96.62.71])
by qmta09.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id jVrh1n0071YDfWL59W0GrE; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:00:16 +0000
Received: from crushinator.localnet ([IPv6:2601:6:4800:47f:219:d1ff:fe75:dc2f])
by omta20.westchester.pa.mail.comcast.net with comcast
id jW0F1n00W4VnV2P3gW0GML; Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:00:16 +0000
From: Matt Whitlock <bip@mattwhitlock.name>
To: Alan Reiner <etotheipi@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 14:00:15 -0400
Message-ID: <2135731.4HGHfZWzo5@crushinator>
User-Agent: KMail/4.12.3 (Linux/3.12.13-gentoo; KDE/4.12.3; x86_64; ; )
In-Reply-To: <53370854.5050303@gmail.com>
References: <CACsn0ckScTWG4YxNCscxvtdsmcUkxtR2Gi-rdBs2HCkirPz5rA@mail.gmail.com>
<15872432.k8h0hUxqlf@crushinator> <53370854.5050303@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7Bit
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/,
no trust [76.96.62.96 listed in list.dnswl.org]
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: 1WTxYL-00066n-LZ
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Presenting a BIP for Shamir's Secret
Sharing of Bitcoin private 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: Sat, 29 Mar 2014 18:00:22 -0000
On Saturday, 29 March 2014, at 1:52 pm, Alan Reiner wrote:
> On 03/29/2014 01:19 PM, Matt Whitlock wrote:
> > I intentionally omitted the parameter M (minimum subset size) from the shares because including it would give an adversary a vital piece of information. Likewise, including any kind of information that would allow a determination of whether the secret has been correctly reconstituted would give an adversary too much information. Failing silently when given incorrect shares or an insufficient number of shares is intentional.
>
> I do not believe this is a good tradeoff. It's basically obfuscation of
> something that is already considered secure at the expense of
> usability. It's much more important to me that the user understands
> what is in their hands (or their family members after they get hit by a
> bus), than to obfuscate the parameters of the secret sharing to provide
> a tiny disadvantage to an adversary who gets ahold of one.
>
> The fact that it fails silently is really all downside, not a benefit.
> If I have enough fragments, I can reconstruct the seed and see that it
> produces addresses with money. If not, I know I need more fragments.
> I'm much more concerned about my family having all the info they need to
> recover the money, than an attacker knowing that he needs two more
> fragments instead of which are well-secured anyway.
For what it's worth, ssss also omits from the shares any information about the threshold. It will happily return a garbage secret if too few shares are combined. (And actually, it will happily return a garbage secret if too *many* shares are combined, too. My implementation does not have that problem.)
|
