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
|
Return-Path: <alfie@alfie.wtf>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 117AC6C
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:54:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: delayed 00:06:55 by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from dosf1.alfie.wtf (dosf1.alfie.wtf [104.236.177.69])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id C9EAC168
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:54:24 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by dosf1.alfie.wtf (Postfix, from userid 0)
id BAAA163955; Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:47:28 +0000 (UTC)
Date: Wed, 8 Jun 2016 23:47:28 +0000
From: Alfie John <alfie@alfie.wtf>
To: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
Message-ID: <20160608234728.GQ32334@dosf1.alfie.wtf>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.8 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RP_MATCHES_RCVD,
SUBJ_ALL_CAPS autolearn=no version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:59:24 +0000
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] BIP 151 MITM
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 08 Jun 2016 23:54:25 -0000
Hi folks,
Overall I think BIP 151 is a good idea. However unless I'm mistaken, what's to
prevent someone between peers to suppress the initial 'encinit' message during
negotiation, causing both to fallback to plaintext?
Peers should negotiate a secure channel from the outset or backout entirely
with no option of falling back. This can be indicated loudly by the daemon
listening on an entirely new port.
Alfie
--
Alfie John
https://www.alfie.wtf
|
