Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bitpay.com
	designates 209.85.213.45 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=209.85.213.45; envelope-from=jgarzik@bitpay.com;
	helo=mail-yh0-f45.google.com; 
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <53F3DFF7.9070709@jrn.me.uk>
References: <CA+8=xuJ+YDTNjyDW7DvP8KPN_nrFWpE68HvLw6EokFa-B-QGKw@mail.gmail.com>
	<CA+8=xuKRyO1=bu7cgNGHvtAeqgKBxjTH2uUkb61GdCuEQWEu5A@mail.gmail.com>
	<0C0EF7F9-DBBA-4872-897D-63CFA3853726@ricmoo.com>
	<CA+8=xu+KWSF6XYgH-_t87na6M6UOD0CM1su8sizxn5a4b0_Xrw@mail.gmail.com>
	<33D4B2E3-DBF0-444E-B76A-765C4C17E964@ricmoo.com>
	<53F37635.5070807@riseup.net>
	<CAAS2fgTF6424+FfzaL=+iaio2zu_uM_74yKohi7T3dtz=J9CjA@mail.gmail.com>
	<53F38AC9.4000608@corganlabs.com> <53F3DFF7.9070709@jrn.me.uk>
From: Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@bitpay.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Aug 2014 19:40:39 -0400
Message-ID: <CAJHLa0ORxgQrkc4oiqSa3NdNHLU-0pmZDLjXUSpBKWBsBWTgcQ@mail.gmail.com>
To: J Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Cc: Bitcoin Development <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Justus Ranvier <justusranvier@riseup.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal: Encrypt bitcoin messages
Precedence: list

Encryption is of little value if you may deduce the same information
by observing packet sizes and timings.


On Tue, Aug 19, 2014 at 7:38 PM, J Ross Nicoll <jrn@jrn.me.uk> wrote:
> The concern is that if you can monitor traffic in and out of a single node,
> you can determine which transactions originate from it vs those which it
> relays. That's not great, certainly, but how many nodes actually require
> that level of security, and surely they can use Tor or VPN services if so?
>
> Further, unless the remote nodes are in some way trusted, you're changing
> the attack from read-only to requiring the ability to perform  a man in the
> middle attack - that doesn't seem much harder to me.
>
> As Gregory states, there's been at least two recent serious if not
> catastrophic OpenSSL bugs, and the consequences of Heartbleed if the Bitcoin
> network had been vulnerable are the stuff of nightmares.
>
> Very difficult to see the risk/reward payoff being worthwhile.
>
> Ross
>
>
> On 19/08/2014 18:35, Johnathan Corgan wrote:
>
> On 08/19/2014 09:38 AM, Gregory Maxwell wrote:
>
> We've dodged several emergency scale vulnerabilities by not having TLS.
>
> I'm still trying to understand the original premise that we want
> encrypted communications between nodes.
>
> I can certainly see the value of having *authenticated* traffic with
> specific nodes, using an HMAC for the protocol messages in place of the
> current checksum.
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Slashdot TV.
> Video for Nerds.  Stuff that matters.
> http://tv.slashdot.org/
> _______________________________________________
> Bitcoin-development mailing list
> Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
>


-- 
Jeff Garzik
Bitcoin core developer and open source evangelist
BitPay, Inc.      https://bitpay.com/