summaryrefslogtreecommitdiff
path: root/8d/0b5d1752e9754ad6e4d6b322658a7bade920c6
blob: 7ffa6274a3e03762664366244a59493ffcd762b1 (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
225
226
227
228
229
230
231
232
233
234
235
236
237
238
239
240
241
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
249
250
251
252
253
254
255
256
257
258
259
260
261
262
263
264
265
266
267
268
269
270
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
279
280
281
282
283
284
285
286
287
288
289
290
291
292
293
294
295
296
297
298
299
300
301
302
303
304
305
306
307
308
309
310
311
312
313
314
315
316
317
318
319
320
321
322
323
324
325
326
327
328
329
330
331
332
333
334
335
336
337
338
339
340
341
342
343
344
345
346
347
348
349
350
351
352
353
354
355
356
357
358
359
360
361
362
363
364
365
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
	helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
	by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
	(envelope-from <eric@voskuil.org>) id 1YLF3M-0006mE-OO
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:56:52 +0000
X-ACL-Warn: 
Received: from mail-pd0-f180.google.com ([209.85.192.180])
	by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
	(Exim 4.76) id 1YLF2u-0006jZ-Gn
	for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:56:52 +0000
Received: by pdev10 with SMTP id v10so23217864pde.7
	for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:56:18 -0800 (PST)
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
	d=1e100.net; s=20130820;
	h=x-gm-message-state:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to
	:cc:subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type;
	bh=UjUDKz2wt8sCl9yAQVoPJmGNRYIWN1BZF1EhG/8YLMs=;
	b=VNPaPhxAB54lbggNvlRpc9dzwF8mgpZOx+dk8RAvfXzABJyiNLdTYs/Sicf4g+XZ3u
	L9TWdPfN+WQviEbqx9tmCOXU9uJpXXJEfdaOxzINaPwLLWMl0FL3zhQNKqUYhXbP+F3P
	AqmgP4l7eNHIR6F0rXMckHHc59aD/R1M2YLFPwxHal5ogawpobhWz5ZTU6BqGsYlyuSx
	S1wo31dv77gLPAyQn6sSztKpRI0MOJIBapk19H/UV2azYz2Z65q3eW4mKEZ2v095vrob
	eclfkS3fovRT/Ma2aq1MF/WDWCyM5S27nN9E1PBVln+UKM1gFh98hRP6F08o5g1M2Mjg
	Ag6g==
X-Gm-Message-State: ALoCoQm1exduu4yaMytmWx3bQqYWk4xnPDUb4peVvHZY0ORcCDrpRv2rghqwvUueqty/izKy8WaJ
X-Received: by 10.66.120.236 with SMTP id lf12mr40511945pab.67.1423590978654; 
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:56:18 -0800 (PST)
Received: from [10.0.1.3] (c-50-135-46-157.hsd1.wa.comcast.net.
	[50.135.46.157]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPSA id
	bc1sm20129623pad.12.2015.02.10.09.56.17
	(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128);
	Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:56:17 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <54DA4657.5080604@voskuil.org>
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 09:56:39 -0800
From: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64;
	rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.2.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: =?UTF-8?B?TeKStnJ0aW4gSOKStmJv4pOLxaF0aWFr?= <martin.habovstiak@gmail.com>
References: <CABdy8DKS4arkkCLGC=66SUJm5Ugib1EWP7B6MkQRX1k-yd3WBw@mail.gmail.com>	<54D3D636.1030308@voskuil.org>	<CANEZrP3ekWQWeV=Yw_E=n0grORBLHaXLUh3w0EFQdz=HsjWvZw@mail.gmail.com>	<279489A5-1E46-48A2-8F58-1A25821D4D96@gmail.com>	<CANEZrP3VAWajxE=mNxb6sLSQbhaQHD=2TgRKvYrEax2PAzCi2A@mail.gmail.com>	<6AEDF3C4-DEE0-4E31-83D0-4FD92B125452@voskuil.org>	<CABdy8DLRGyy5dvmVb_B3vao7Qwz-zdAC3-+2nJkg9rSsU6FLbw@mail.gmail.com>	<C28CD881-DAB8-4EDB-B239-7D45A825EAF0@voskuil.org>	<54D3FB4A.9010105@voskuil.org>	<CALkkCJammCvVd6_1SYRvnxsMVj_x1AvS1VsSa6_76d0NWMDs=Q@mail.gmail.com>	<54D400F0.9090406@voskuil.org>	<CALkkCJYLfEXxvKjOMCNtK3zhCOmO24JD3w73VwORoqX9xF_p7w@mail.gmail.com>	<54D4093F.5000707@voskuil.org>	<C6292B5F-B48D-4BCE-909E-DD59261E8E95@gmail.com>	<54D418DF.1000704@voskuil.org>	<CALkkCJb_FZ6w9fWKGRcbfr4RRA5g5da-A3EEbZqHPOUjCNWoew@mail.gmail.com>	<54DA381E.7050407@voskuil.org>
	<CALkkCJZB9RTAXiT_V8FtP+L6OOhgryBRDE21by-bpWOVes+jmA@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CALkkCJZB9RTAXiT_V8FtP+L6OOhgryBRDE21by-bpWOVes+jmA@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature";
	boundary="RGrGG8P0CveT7Hg7Si5l6LPjxHkTUs2b4"
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
	See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
X-Headers-End: 1YLF2u-0006jZ-Gn
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>,
	Paul Puey <paul@airbitz.co>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Proposal for P2P Wireless (Bluetooth LE)
 transfer of Payment URI
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
	<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 17:56:52 -0000

This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 4880 and 3156)
--RGrGG8P0CveT7Hg7Si5l6LPjxHkTUs2b4
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 02/10/2015 09:16 AM, M=E2=92=B6rtin H=E2=92=B6bo=E2=93=8B=C5=A1tiak wr=
ote:
> I'm not sure if I was clear enough. Handshake should be used to
> establish authenticated AND encrypted communication using ECDH (or
> just DH, but I think it's easier to use ECDH, since required functions
> are already used in Bitcoin protocol), like RedPhone does. BTW
> knowledge of verification string is useless to the attacker.

Yes, I think this was clear from your description.

> Yes, the customer must verify it verbally and the merchant shouldn't
> send the transaction before verification. Other possibility is that in
> case of differing verification strings new address is generated, so
> attacker doesn't know the address. But in this case, amount is leaked
> and there is quite high probability it can be found in the Blockchain.

Yes, for each handshake the payment request would need to contain a
different address, mitigating some of the privacy loss.

> Anyway, I don't believe the transaction can be made securely without
> such interaction except with white-listing public keys, so I see no
> reason why interaction should be problematic.

It can be done securely and privately by transfer of a shared secret
through a private channel.

> We don't have such strict regulations but I agree that security is
> important. Currently I think that verbal verification and manual
> confirmation is the best way to achieve high security and reasonable
> user-friendliness.

I think for a broadcast model (e.g. Bluetooth only) that is the only
want to ensure integrity and privacy. A narrow cast can use proximity to
establish trust.

> 2015-02-10 17:55 GMT+01:00 Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>:
>> Martin,
>>
>> I like your idea for the commit protocol in that it resolves the
>> vandalous address substitution attack. However, I don't see a way to
>> prevent privacy loss without adverse impact to the scenario.
>>
>> Anyone could perform the handshake and thereby obtain the payment
>> request. Therefore to prevent inadvertent disclosure the customer must=

>> visually confirm the "phrase" and then verbally tell the merchant to
>> proceed by sending the payment request.
>>
>> One might argue that it's sufficient to preserve the integrity of the
>> transaction while suffering the privacy loss, especially given that a
>> hijacked handshake should never result in a completed transaction -
>> unless of course the hijacker pays.
>>
>> But imagine someone purchasing their meds. HIPAA requires the checkout=

>> queue to form behind a yellow line. That speaks directly to this quest=
ion.
>>
>> e
>>
>> On 02/06/2015 01:07 AM, M=E2=92=B6rtin H=E2=92=B6bo=E2=93=8B=C5=A1tiak=
 wrote:
>>> 2015-02-06 2:29 GMT+01:00 Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>:
>>>> On 02/05/2015 04:36 PM, Martin Habov=C5=A1tiak wrote:
>>>>> I believe, we are still talking about transactions of physical
>>>>> people in physical world. So yes, it's proximity based - people
>>>>> tell the words by mouth. :)
>>>>
>>>> Notice from my original comment:
>>>>
>>>>>>>> A MITM can substitute the key. If you don't have verifiable
>>>>>>>> identity associated with the public key (PKI/WoT), you need
>>>>>>>> a shared secret (such as a secret phrase).
>>>>
>>>> I said this could only be accomplished using a shared secret or a
>>>> trusted public key. Exchanging a value that is derived from a pair o=
f
>>>> public keys is a distinction without a difference. The problem remai=
ns
>>>> that the parties must have a secure/out-of-band channel for
>>>> communicating this value.
>>>>
>>>> The fact that they are face-to-face establishes this channel, but th=
at
>>>> brings us back to the original problem, as it requires manual
>>>> verification - as in visual/audible scanning of the two values for
>>>> comparison. At that point the visual comparison of the address, or s=
ome
>>>> value derived from it, is simpler.
>>>
>>> I have never been against manual verification. What I'm trying to say=

>>> is let's just make manual verification easier and more secure.
>>> Comparison of address is simpler for the coder but also simpler to
>>> attack. It has these problems:
>>> - Addresses broadcasted in plaintext (privacy issue)
>>> - Amounts broadcasted in plaintext (privacy issue)
>>> - Address is long - takes lot of time to verify (user experience issu=
e)
>>> - Address prefix can be brute-forced, if too short or used to make
>>> "black hole" address if longer (vandalism issue)
>>>
>>> Commit protocol can be used for both the encryption and the
>>> authentication while user experience is not bad and everything is
>>> still secure.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> In case of RedPhone, you read those words verbally over not-yet-
>>>>> verified channel relying on difficulty of spoofing your voice. Also=

>>>>> the app remembers the public keys, so you don't need to verify
>>>>> second time.
>>>>
>>>> This is reasonable, but wouldn't help in the case of an ad-hoc
>>>> connection between parties who don't know each other well.
>>>>
>>>>> I suggest you to try RedPhone (called Signal on iPhone) yourself.
>>>>> It's free/open source, Internet-based and end-to-end encrypted. You=

>>>>> may find it useful some day. Also I'm willing to help you with
>>>>> trying it after I wake up. (~8 hours: Send me private e-mail if
>>>>> you want to.)
>>>>
>>>> I appreciate the offer. I really don't trust *any* smartphone as a
>>>> platform for secure communication/data. But encrypting on the wire d=
oes
>>>> of course shrink the attack surface and increase the attacker's cost=
=2E
>>>>
>>>> e
>>>>
>>>>> D=C5=88a 6. febru=C3=A1ra 2015 1:22:23 CET pou=C5=BE=C3=ADvate=C4=BE=
 Eric Voskuil
>>>> <eric@voskuil.org> nap=C3=ADsal:
>>>>
>>>>>> On 02/05/2015 04:04 PM, M=E2=92=B6rtin H=E2=92=B6bo=E2=93=8B=C5=A1=
tiak wrote:
>>>>>>> That's exactly what I though when seeing the RedPhone code, but a=
fter
>>>>>>> I studied the commit protocol I realized it's actually secure and=

>>>>>>> convenient way to do it. You should do that too. :)
>>>>>
>>>>>> I was analyzing the model as you described it to me. A formal anal=
ysis
>>>>>> of the security model of a particular implementation, based on
>>>>>> inference
>>>>> >from source code, is a bit beyond what I signed up for. But I'm
>>>>>> perfectly willing to comment on your description of the model if y=
ou
>>>>>> are
>>>>>> willing to indulge me.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Shortly, how it works:
>>>>>>> The initiator of the connection sends commit message containing t=
he
>>>>>>> hash of his temporary public ECDH part, second party sends back t=
heir
>>>>>>> public ECDH part and then initiator sends his public ECDH part in=

>>>>>>> open. All three messages are hashed together and the first two by=
tes
>>>>>>> are used to select two words from a shared dictionary which are
>>>>>>> displayed on the screen of both the initiator and the second part=
y.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The parties communicate those two words and verify they match.
>>>>>
>>>>>> How do they compare words if they haven't yet established a secure=

>>>>>> channel?
>>>>>
>>>>>>> If an attacker wants to do MITM, he has a chance of choosing righ=
t
>>>>>>> public parts 1:65536. There is no way to brute-force it, since th=
at
>>>>>>> would be noticed immediately. If instead of two words based on th=
e
>>>>>>> first two bytes, four words from BIP39 wordlist were chosen, it w=
ould
>>>>>>> provide entropy of 44 bits which I believe should be enough even =
for
>>>>>>> paranoid people.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How this would work in Bitcoin payment scenario: user's phone
>>>>>>> broadcasts his name, merchant inputs amount and selects the name =
from
>>>>>>> the list, commit message is sent (and then the remaining two
>>>>>>> messages), merchant spells four words he sees on the screen and b=
uyer
>>>>>>> confirms transaction after verifying that words match.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So the assumption is that there exists a secure (as in proximity-b=
ased)
>>>>>> communication channel?
>>>>>
>>>>>> e
>>>>>
>>>>>>> 2015-02-06 0:46 GMT+01:00 Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil.org>:
>>>>>>>> On 02/05/2015 03:36 PM, M=E2=92=B6rtin H=E2=92=B6bo=E2=93=8B=C5=A1=
tiak wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> A BIP-70 signed payment request in the initial broadcast can
>>>>>> resolve the
>>>>>>>>>> integrity issues, but because of the public nature of the
>>>>>> broadcast
>>>>>>>>>> coupled with strong public identity, the privacy compromise is=

>>>>>> much
>>>>>>>>>> worse. Now transactions are cryptographically tainted.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> This is also the problem with BIP-70 over the web. TLS and oth=
er
>>>>>>>>>> security precautions aside, an interloper on the communication=
,
>>>>>> desktop,
>>>>>>>>>> datacenter, etc., can capture payment requests and strongly
>>>>>> correlate
>>>>>>>>>> transactions to identities in an automated manner. The payment=

>>>>>> request
>>>>>>>>>> must be kept private between the parties, and that's hard to d=
o.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What about using encryption with forward secrecy? Merchant woul=
d
>>>>>>>>> generate signed request containing public ECDH part, buyer woul=
d
>>>>>> send
>>>>>>>>> back transaction encrypted with ECDH and his public ECDH part. =
If
>>>>>>>>> receiving address/amount is meant to be private, use commit
>>>>>> protocol
>>>>>>>>> (see ZRTP/RedPhone) and short authentication phrase (which is h=
ard
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> spoof thanks to commit protocol - see RedPhone)?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The problem is that you need to verify the ownership of the publ=
ic
>>>>>> key.
>>>>>>>> A MITM can substitute the key. If you don't have verifiable iden=
tity
>>>>>>>> associated with the public key (PKI/WoT), you need a shared secr=
et
>>>>>> (such
>>>>>>>> as a secret phrase). But the problem is then establishing that
>>>>>> secret
>>>>>>>> over a public channel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You can bootstrap a private session over the untrusted network u=
sing
>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> trusted public key (PKI/WoT). But the presumption is that you ar=
e
>>>>>>>> already doing this over the web (using TLS). That process is sub=
ject
>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> attack at the CA. WoT is not subject to a CA attack, because it'=
s
>>>>>>>> decentralized. But it's also not sufficiently deployed for some
>>>>>> scenarios.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> e
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>


--RGrGG8P0CveT7Hg7Si5l6LPjxHkTUs2b4
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc"

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1

iQEcBAEBAgAGBQJU2kZXAAoJEDzYwH8LXOFOvL4H/1kp+HYi2Dsys7PIRwxuPC3I
/T/VQ9Em2z6VOtCqXhQKqVcn7C3vVaHnbAuHuUOYa5SiAXEa7M43N/tptb01uJpR
fW3ONzl/GPPvIMsi7W6HYEpkYehBDbozxFgmGoapJdNjkhrtz4cv9Ei/4Oil0M44
+8/HwkRzmOecqTG5eTM7S86tP3fEcw45TfI0Q68w6yHd2vk/2Qx2nQ+5CcrbLQJ1
bZFh/95vsp0Ehq0ePhMPHkGrq6HVFqmpTRsSTR8974h/4XjYVeEVWvHkvfJpPrmv
kWnxoiUxCKNK/bULdPeyUdbj/951KzcBdBLJtrHpCUyFXBfxm9W8R1jmlX8940w=
=mNoy
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--RGrGG8P0CveT7Hg7Si5l6LPjxHkTUs2b4--