summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/6b/e7d15d29a7c6e9b2eb51a78bf3adc44feaa7c1
blob: 4c1d7a3a6144b70231008357b563a86514a8dbc1 (plain)
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
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
185
186
187
188
189
190
191
192
193
194
195
196
197
198
199
200
201
202
203
204
205
206
207
208
209
210
211
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
Return-Path: <dustinpaystaxes@gmail.com>
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org (smtp2.osuosl.org [140.211.166.133])
 by lists.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id BEEF9C013E
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  2 Mar 2020 19:45:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1])
 by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AB33A87852
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  2 Mar 2020 19:45:19 +0000 (UTC)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at osuosl.org
Received: from hemlock.osuosl.org ([127.0.0.1])
 by localhost (.osuosl.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024)
 with ESMTP id nDp22prAVzGg
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  2 Mar 2020 19:45:18 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from mail-ot1-f43.google.com (mail-ot1-f43.google.com
 [209.85.210.43])
 by hemlock.osuosl.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B161387535
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon,  2 Mar 2020 19:45:18 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-ot1-f43.google.com with SMTP id i14so507359otp.5
 for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 11:45:18 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025;
 h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to;
 bh=dJ4gcB9TTpwzZ6QOGbHxuoVExREVKKSfL3IO5/IlAhM=;
 b=KlRyoN8G6i/xEOymrlxLih7OF0JHYthmOhjND7ocAM1+wUra2MGffcdtB/J6hEuqLC
 bhQLk+CL9+bmrk2dfI0yrp1vNFRkJjqk/F8lOfbd9GZCyWS0ZSdMfuUt66MkmgAytXCv
 UsVQQWBNKr/oUtl/Tq5c7GjcBN4EHybNuE9zaKEcYyVuggD6fABNcWzYIjCN+GO8ZFqk
 DjcmtIYmbXD58R5rW1PjKq9pF6eDQqqg0JecPf9daol+scHuLUvf/PY81iObG7RDzMre
 wxJ1EBd+hCX5c2MuzImo5E1SzK3Jv/UvTXJkFg83YSbpVg6XR8Pj1LpnT4NI25SRfPaA
 OWMw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
 d=1e100.net; s=20161025;
 h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date
 :message-id:subject:to;
 bh=dJ4gcB9TTpwzZ6QOGbHxuoVExREVKKSfL3IO5/IlAhM=;
 b=TqCvJUYEqODoJo3sQGN4thVoxzN/2MHr4YVv7kaKPtRBYX2G5BQd+E1c01L/JXb4nk
 tAjRlQBrRmNO1f0Lbjn77cYnLDK+HwLxCtJIoFCYD28Rs9yxyP4Xby3dGQQnCDb7kEI2
 cdu5suJkKowRisW8tAaih2ZuGkMhc7IGjPkO1qqMAdV22alpIq1f6CEEggmqe1p1eg5a
 tghZDKEksYsFRMUIyNmnW23rb7/cSSa8hjsoPKDlmQ2m2zRxZbqujPG2ph9ZkfqSvIuQ
 cCVyb+LWRTEuX5fujQ/8ENMuNvsgDSmVOmFBSAQxOVq7mFwdIR5FxS9F+Ls61KsIAe3P
 3SVw==
X-Gm-Message-State: ANhLgQ3YupE2x/Jeqam7qv02MpraIRIPzxezQG1TL82RQV6tK6F9A2aC
 6x6/rWURwFG10ieZUvv2GbAOW8a24UPAIbe5cugXKl5Q
X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADFU+vuaL2vCcu8nX9w2xMAtXGj7J1NM0m7q4PUnRvaF/FMUZkV6d0UyN7+On0jJVupseI1njDkU/rCUJIUziWnTaIo=
X-Received: by 2002:a9d:7d0c:: with SMTP id v12mr595244otn.171.1583178313619; 
 Mon, 02 Mar 2020 11:45:13 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <CACL8y1vNEOfATJvkYTOV3pZQA5uac3hbTe9Onfz-38zJUzL_Ug@mail.gmail.com>
 <c6709c19-a6b2-37a8-0d58-4800126f145f@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <c6709c19-a6b2-37a8-0d58-4800126f145f@gmail.com>
From: Dustin Dettmer <dustinpaystaxes@gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Mar 2020 11:45:02 -0800
Message-ID: <CABLeJxQHav=3itLiWCjHGhuEk84JA=WFmLSE4iTa_Cv5cDYizg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>,
 Marko <mbencun@gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000046a21059fe46d76"
X-Mailman-Approved-At: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:55:42 +0000
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Nonce blinding protocol for hardware wallets and
 airgapped signers
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
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: Mon, 02 Mar 2020 19:45:19 -0000

--000000000000046a21059fe46d76
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

+1 love that progress is being made on this. Excited to implement it once
it=E2=80=99s ready.

Would love if things like the incrementing number were included in the
standard as well.

Cheers! =F0=9F=8D=BB

On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:51 AM Marko via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:

> Thanks for starting this initiative; it has been a long standing goal of
> mine to implement and release this protocol. Your blog post on the topic
> actually inspired me to pick up this work again a few months ago.
>
> Jonas Nick has implemented the protocol in the secp256k1 library for
> Schnorr sigs here: https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/590
>
> I have backported the same scheme to ECDSA in the secp256k1 library
> here, so it can be used also for current transactions:
>
> https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/669
>
> I also made proof of concepts for the BitBox02 hw wallet firmware and
> BitBoxApp wallet to verify that the protocol also works well in practice.
>
> The actual scheme used in those implementations is a generalized
> sign-to-contract scheme, where the final nonce is computed as `k' =3D k +
> H(k*G, n)` instead of `k'=3Dk+n`, but otherwise it works mostly the same
> for the anti nonce covert channel protocol. I suggest to use this scheme
> in PSBT as well.
>
> > We can either use proprietary fields [4] or define key-value pairs and
> add
> > them to the BIP-174. Depends if anyone else is interested in using this
> > protocol or not.
>
> I'd definitely be interested in seeing widespread support for this, and
> standardizing it would help with that.
>
> With PSBT used with an air-gapped signer, there is increased danger in
> implementing the protocol wrongly by relying on the contents of the PSBT
> alone in the final verification step of a signature. The PSBT must be
> verified carefully against state stored by the host for the PSBT.
> Otherwise the signer can for example change or pre-fill the relevant
> NONCE fields and leak the private keys anyway. Is there a current best
> practice for how a PSBT can be identified by the host to store/retrieve
> the state?
>
> Are there other examples in PSBT where the host can't trust the contents
> of the PSBT the signer returns (except of course for the parts the user
> can verify themselves, like recipients, amounts, etc.)? In any case,
> guidelines or conventions on how to avoid the pitfalls would be good.
>
> Best, Marko
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>

--000000000000046a21059fe46d76
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div><div dir=3D"auto">+1 love that progress is being made on this. Excited=
 to implement it once it=E2=80=99s ready.</div></div><div dir=3D"auto"><br>=
</div><div dir=3D"auto">Would love if things like the incrementing number w=
ere included in the standard as well.</div><div dir=3D"auto"><br></div><div=
 dir=3D"auto">Cheers! =F0=9F=8D=BB</div><div><br><div class=3D"gmail_quote"=
><div dir=3D"ltr" class=3D"gmail_attr">On Fri, Feb 28, 2020 at 9:51 AM Mark=
o via bitcoin-dev &lt;<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.o=
rg">bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a>&gt; wrote:<br></div><blockquo=
te class=3D"gmail_quote" style=3D"margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc so=
lid;padding-left:1ex">Thanks for starting this initiative; it has been a lo=
ng standing goal of<br>
mine to implement and release this protocol. Your blog post on the topic<br=
>
actually inspired me to pick up this work again a few months ago.<br>
<br>
Jonas Nick has implemented the protocol in the secp256k1 library for<br>
Schnorr sigs here: <a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pul=
l/590" rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin-core=
/secp256k1/pull/590</a><br>
<br>
I have backported the same scheme to ECDSA in the secp256k1 library<br>
here, so it can be used also for current transactions:<br>
<br>
<a href=3D"https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/669" rel=3D"noref=
errer" target=3D"_blank">https://github.com/bitcoin-core/secp256k1/pull/669=
</a><br>
<br>
I also made proof of concepts for the BitBox02 hw wallet firmware and<br>
BitBoxApp wallet to verify that the protocol also works well in practice.<b=
r>
<br>
The actual scheme used in those implementations is a generalized<br>
sign-to-contract scheme, where the final nonce is computed as `k&#39; =3D k=
 +<br>
H(k*G, n)` instead of `k&#39;=3Dk+n`, but otherwise it works mostly the sam=
e<br>
for the anti nonce covert channel protocol. I suggest to use this scheme<br=
>
in PSBT as well.<br>
<br>
&gt; We can either use proprietary fields [4] or define key-value pairs and=
 add<br>
&gt; them to the BIP-174. Depends if anyone else is interested in using thi=
s<br>
&gt; protocol or not.<br>
<br>
I&#39;d definitely be interested in seeing widespread support for this, and=
<br>
standardizing it would help with that.<br>
<br>
With PSBT used with an air-gapped signer, there is increased danger in<br>
implementing the protocol wrongly by relying on the contents of the PSBT<br=
>
alone in the final verification step of a signature. The PSBT must be<br>
verified carefully against state stored by the host for the PSBT.<br>
Otherwise the signer can for example change or pre-fill the relevant<br>
NONCE fields and leak the private keys anyway. Is there a current best<br>
practice for how a PSBT can be identified by the host to store/retrieve<br>
the state?<br>
<br>
Are there other examples in PSBT where the host can&#39;t trust the content=
s<br>
of the PSBT the signer returns (except of course for the parts the user<br>
can verify themselves, like recipients, amounts, etc.)? In any case,<br>
guidelines or conventions on how to avoid the pitfalls would be good.<br>
<br>
Best, Marko<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
bitcoin-dev mailing list<br>
<a href=3D"mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org" target=3D"_blank">=
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org</a><br>
<a href=3D"https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev" =
rel=3D"noreferrer" target=3D"_blank">https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mail=
man/listinfo/bitcoin-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div></div>

--000000000000046a21059fe46d76--