📅 Original date posted:2020-02-20
📝 Original message:
Bastien TEINTURIER <bastien at acinq.fr> writes:
> Exactly what Matt said.
>
> I would also add that libp2p aims to be a kind of swiss-army knife for p2p
> networking: that's nice for many use-cases, but when security is your main
> focus, it's not.
> Look at TLS: most attacks are downgrade attacks because the protocol offers
> way too many options.
> Protocols like Wireguard have perfectly understood this. No options, not
> many configuration hooks -> small, auditable codebase.
>
> For lightning it's the same: we prefer a very simple transport that has no
> options whatsoever.
> Simple to implement, simple to test, and works great in practice.
To add to this: at Milan we chose a raw protocol instead of using
protobufs. At the time I was unsure, but being able to specify each
message down to the bit level has meant we've never really had problems
at that level.
But it did mean we wasted time arguing over endianness, etc!
Cheers,
Rusty.
Rusty Russell [ARCHIVE] /
npub1zw…hkhpx
2023-06-09 12:58:55
in reply to nevent1q…hy69
Author Public Key
npub1zw7cc8z78v6s3grujfvcv3ckpvg6kr0w7nz9yzvwyglyg0qu5sjsqhkhpxPublished at
2023-06-09 12:58:55Event JSON
{
"id": "7df15e9ec819562961deb6d4fa3758fdaf900ec0b532c67b356602728a0487df",
"pubkey": "13bd8c1c5e3b3508a07c92598647160b11ab0deef4c452098e223e443c1ca425",
"created_at": 1686315535,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"a7ae10fc55b4d320d5dc0b0592e32b2db619c8a47c005e0f6f825597739c1029",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"68e08469abd1c37201ac09aad5561bae54fe30a908927875bc1e5627282b4552",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"f26569a10f83f6935797b8b53a87974fdcc1de6abd31e3b1a3a19bdaed8031cb"
]
],
"content": "📅 Original date posted:2020-02-20\n📝 Original message:\nBastien TEINTURIER \u003cbastien at acinq.fr\u003e writes:\n\u003e Exactly what Matt said.\n\u003e\n\u003e I would also add that libp2p aims to be a kind of swiss-army knife for p2p\n\u003e networking: that's nice for many use-cases, but when security is your main\n\u003e focus, it's not.\n\u003e Look at TLS: most attacks are downgrade attacks because the protocol offers\n\u003e way too many options.\n\u003e Protocols like Wireguard have perfectly understood this. No options, not\n\u003e many configuration hooks -\u003e small, auditable codebase.\n\u003e\n\u003e For lightning it's the same: we prefer a very simple transport that has no\n\u003e options whatsoever.\n\u003e Simple to implement, simple to test, and works great in practice.\n\nTo add to this: at Milan we chose a raw protocol instead of using\nprotobufs. At the time I was unsure, but being able to specify each\nmessage down to the bit level has meant we've never really had problems\nat that level.\n\nBut it did mean we wasted time arguing over endianness, etc!\n\nCheers,\nRusty.",
"sig": "8663b7a19dea582800d01a9d9e87d50eb690d3a887f2be1841d99cd152f4de0531d264b60d408b4deea85a9e830aed11b95c55cbca7727663485801b7d180a3c"
}