Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1UVKmW-0005m7-En for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:56:08 +0000 Received: from mout.web.de ([212.227.15.4]) by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) id 1UVKmV-0008DS-HB for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:56:08 +0000 Received: from crunch ([77.180.198.197]) by smtp.web.de (mrweb101) with ESMTPA (Nemesis) id 0MD87M-1UH32i2TSG-00H9SP; Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:56:00 +0200 Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 13:55:59 +0200 From: Timo Hanke To: Mike Hearn Message-ID: <20130425115559.GA32463@crunch> References: <20130425095855.GA30535@crunch> <20130425102853.GA31573@crunch> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15) X-Provags-ID: V02:K0:mqmU209axPdMbjsliNi4XrCiUlVm7Ch21ryif0mtc6V 1vkq/JHN+1lTtHeiD3oXJydLrKqILjLFLC3YKWd7mX5gHFP9W9 GzcVZtMQAKp6GPNFtT4yybXpR6MpCWkz/NhjI7zJa6Ab0qiYOJ 1MzbpwRsSkkBqJEZf2nmZ84HqpTQ6InvLQ+Ch/hvuJEdga9m9N q/eV7yrkxLm3T+PW38PnA== 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 [212.227.15.4 listed in list.dnswl.org] 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (timo.hanke[at]web.de) -0.0 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay domain X-Headers-End: 1UVKmV-0008DS-HB Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Cold Signing Payment Requests X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list Reply-To: timo.hanke@web.de List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 11:56:08 -0000 On Thu, Apr 25, 2013 at 12:45:33PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote: > > That's a pointless goal to try and solve right now, because the SSL > > PKI cannot handle compromised web servers and so neither can we (with > > v1 of the payments spec). > > I don't think the OP intended to solve it "right now", i.e. in v1. > > He differentiated between "most trusted" and "less trusted" keys > (certs). So he can clearly live with the SSL PKI being "less trusted" > for his purpose. > > > Yes, but my point is if the SSL key lives on the web server, and there are CAs > that issue you certs based on control of a web server at the given domain name > (there are), then you can simply issue yourself a new SSL cert with whatever > data in it you want and pose as the merchant. True, I forgot about that, though we already had discussed this in the past.. -- Timo Hanke PGP AB967DA8, Key fingerprint = 1EFF 69BC 6FB7 8744 14DB 631D 1BB5 D6E3 AB96 7DA8