Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-4.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
	designates 74.125.82.175 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=74.125.82.175; envelope-from=andyparkins@gmail.com;
	helo=mail-we0-f175.google.com; 
From: Andy Parkins <andyparkins@gmail.com>
To: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Date: Fri, 16 Dec 2011 17:21:11 +0000
User-Agent: KMail/1.13.6 (Linux/3.0.0-1-686-pae; KDE/4.6.3; i686; ; )
References: <1323728469.78044.YahooMailNeo@web121012.mail.ne1.yahoo.com>
	<20111216083536.GA20470@ulyssis.org>
	<CAJ1JLtsRGF8wQBE0Uym67baw4wWT6hGamGjSPWyuB_em479y9Q@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAJ1JLtsRGF8wQBE0Uym67baw4wWT6hGamGjSPWyuB_em479y9Q@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="nextPart2475524.HNXItCd5CJ";
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; micalg=pgp-sha1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201112161721.11498.andyparkins@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [BIP 15] Aliases
Precedence: list

--nextPart2475524.HNXItCd5CJ
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 2011 December 16 Friday, Rick Wesson wrote:

> I believe that any URI scheme will still leverage DNS and inherit any
> base issues you would have with TXT records. I suggest looking at DANE

HTTPS takes care of that.

> and reviewing their work on hardening certificate (x.509)
> infrastructure as your HTTPS scheme will inherit the issues we
> currently experience with CAs getting p0wned.

This is the only real problem with HTTPS: we would be centralising part of =
our=20
otherwise decentralised system.  CAs are certainly a risk.

However, trust is needed somewhere in the communication.  There is no way t=
o=20
securely communicate between A and B without the use of some previously=20
trusted secure channel -- in Joe Sixpack's case it's by assuming that the=20
browser he downloaded came with an untainted CA list, and that the CAs are=
=20
trustworthy.  Neither of which is guaranteed.  Until and unless we get PGP=
=20
support in browsers, CAs are all that we have.

Worrying about CAs misses the point anyway; if we're being that paranoid --=
=20
how did A tell B the appropriate alias to use for a lookup?  Was that chann=
el=20
secure too?  I could set up a MITM server that simply looks for the alias=20
"RICKWESSON@bitcoinaliases.org" and rewrites it to=20
"ANDYPARKINS@bitcoinaliases.org".  When the answer to that problem is HTTPS=
=20
(or some other system that requires a previously authorised secure channel =
for=20
transfer of trust), then we're back where we started, and HTTPS is acceptab=
le.


Andy

=2D-=20
Dr Andy Parkins
andyparkins@gmail.com

--nextPart2475524.HNXItCd5CJ
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name=signature.asc 
Content-Description: This is a digitally signed message part.

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux)

iEYEABECAAYFAk7rfgcACgkQwQJ9gE9xL21YQgCeNbJlPgB49yyQgRqMplkR3rQU
CiUAoNi5M+IzndUkE38wkIsc2gytwOPY
=eWzb
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--nextPart2475524.HNXItCd5CJ--