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
101
102
103
104
|
Received: from sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.194]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <mh.in.england@gmail.com>) id 1XFghO-0005dG-OS
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:42:58 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.218.49 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.218.49; envelope-from=mh.in.england@gmail.com;
helo=mail-oi0-f49.google.com;
Received: from mail-oi0-f49.google.com ([209.85.218.49])
by sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1XFghN-0006BZ-Sz
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:42:58 +0000
Received: by mail-oi0-f49.google.com with SMTP id u20so3435415oif.8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.60.158.8 with SMTP id wq8mr29000656oeb.40.1407490972398;
Fri, 08 Aug 2014 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
Sender: mh.in.england@gmail.com
Received: by 10.76.35.234 with HTTP; Fri, 8 Aug 2014 02:42:52 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAJna-HjzMO68KSXYG++X-8vzQCLurkrAAhfrVo9-AbaoYdqZhw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPS+U9-ze_-gcYh1WNVJ5h8AZ8owoQX=8OUgNcKnaxgvjxZATA@mail.gmail.com>
<201408072345.45363.luke@dashjr.org>
<CAJna-HjzMO68KSXYG++X-8vzQCLurkrAAhfrVo9-AbaoYdqZhw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 8 Aug 2014 11:42:52 +0200
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 2ctu7aWlnn599iKF8edu2A2-gzA
Message-ID: <CANEZrP0fsojCdKUe0Yx6POJesyTbq4f41MPzFfhKWerFn0UJGw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
To: slush <slush@centrum.cz>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7bd6ac486f3d5a05001b0787
X-Spam-Score: -0.5 (/)
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
(mh.in.england[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
1.0 HTML_MESSAGE BODY: HTML included in message
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: 1XFghN-0006BZ-Sz
Cc: "bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net"
<bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Miners MiTM
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: Fri, 08 Aug 2014 09:42:58 -0000
--047d7bd6ac486f3d5a05001b0787
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
>
> AFAIK the only protection is SSL + certificate validation on client side.
> However certificate revocation and updates in miners are pain in the ass,
> that's why majority of pools (mine including) don't want to play with
> that...
>
Why would miners need updates? If they implement the standard SSL
infrastructure you can change certificates and keys without needing to
update miners.
Besides, when it comes to financial services SSL is essential, I'm kind of
surprised it wasn't already used everywhere. I wouldn't use an online bank
that didn't support SSL, I would see it as a a sign of serious problems.
Heck I wouldn't even use webmail that didn't support SSL these days.
--047d7bd6ac486f3d5a05001b0787
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<div dir=3D"ltr"><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><div class=3D"gmail_quote"><blo=
ckquote class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #c=
cc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir=3D"ltr">AFAIK the only protection is SS=
L + certificate validation on client side. However certificate revocation a=
nd updates in miners are pain in the ass, that's why majority of pools =
(mine including) don't want to play with that...</div>
</blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why would miners need updates? If they imp=
lement the standard SSL infrastructure you can change certificates and keys=
without needing to update miners.</div><div><br></div><div>Besides, when i=
t comes to financial services SSL is essential, I'm kind of surprised i=
t wasn't already used everywhere. I wouldn't use an online bank tha=
t didn't support SSL, I would see it as a a sign of serious problems. H=
eck I wouldn't even use webmail that didn't support SSL these days.=
</div>
<div><br></div><div><br></div></div></div></div>
--047d7bd6ac486f3d5a05001b0787--
|
