š
Original date posted:2016-06-28
š Original message:On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:29:54PM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:
>
>
> > On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:14 PM, Peter Todd <pete at petertodd.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 08:35:26PM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:
> >> Hi Peter,
> >>
> >> What in this BIP makes a MITM attack easier (or easy) to detect, or increases the probability of one being detected?
> >
> > BIP151 gives users the tools to detect a MITM attack.
> >
> > It's kinda like PGP in that way: lots of PGP users don't properly check keys,
>
> PGP requires a secure side channel for transmission of public keys. How does one "check" a key of an anonymous peer? I know you well enough to know you wouldn't trust a PGP key received over an insecure channel.
>
> All you can prove is that you are talking to a peer and that communications in the session remain with that peer. The peer can be the attacker. As Jonas has acknowledged, authentication is required to actually guard against MITM attacks.
Easy: anonymous peers aren't always actually anonymous.
A MITM attacker can't easily distinguish communications between two nodes that
randomly picked their peers, and nodes that are connected because their
operators manually used -addnode to peer; in the latter case the operators can
check whether or not they're being attacked with an out-of-band key check.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 455 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160628/cbd12c6b/attachment.sig>;
Peter Todd [ARCHIVE] /
npub1m2ā¦a2np2
2023-06-07 17:51:38
in reply to nevent1qā¦4zs6
Author Public Key
npub1m230cem2yh3mtdzkg32qhj73uytgkyg5ylxsu083n3tpjnajxx4qqa2np2Published at
2023-06-07 17:51:38Event JSON
{
"id": "bab6266af48f008d501b76bf79a64040232045e8c9d04035c814915d2998d3c7",
"pubkey": "daa2fc676a25e3b5b45644540bcbd1e1168b111427cd0e3cf19c56194fb231aa",
"created_at": 1686160298,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"d0e8bb25d553b30c0cc0d96d85855c267cf10b5981dd5042024df41c59046cbd",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"0dbbf8982f95d528d52c904d38e6d0b962bda5d14f00375acb9f03a0ee26315c",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"82205f272f995d9be742779a3c19a2ae08522ca14824c3a3b01525fb5459161e"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2016-06-28\nš Original message:On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 10:29:54PM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:\n\u003e \n\u003e \n\u003e \u003e On Jun 28, 2016, at 10:14 PM, Peter Todd \u003cpete at petertodd.org\u003e wrote:\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e\u003e On Tue, Jun 28, 2016 at 08:35:26PM +0200, Eric Voskuil wrote:\n\u003e \u003e\u003e Hi Peter,\n\u003e \u003e\u003e \n\u003e \u003e\u003e What in this BIP makes a MITM attack easier (or easy) to detect, or increases the probability of one being detected?\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e BIP151 gives users the tools to detect a MITM attack.\n\u003e \u003e \n\u003e \u003e It's kinda like PGP in that way: lots of PGP users don't properly check keys,\n\u003e \n\u003e PGP requires a secure side channel for transmission of public keys. How does one \"check\" a key of an anonymous peer? I know you well enough to know you wouldn't trust a PGP key received over an insecure channel.\n\u003e \n\u003e All you can prove is that you are talking to a peer and that communications in the session remain with that peer. The peer can be the attacker. As Jonas has acknowledged, authentication is required to actually guard against MITM attacks.\n\nEasy: anonymous peers aren't always actually anonymous.\n\nA MITM attacker can't easily distinguish communications between two nodes that\nrandomly picked their peers, and nodes that are connected because their\noperators manually used -addnode to peer; in the latter case the operators can\ncheck whether or not they're being attacked with an out-of-band key check.\n\n-- \nhttps://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org\n-------------- next part --------------\nA non-text attachment was scrubbed...\nName: signature.asc\nType: application/pgp-signature\nSize: 455 bytes\nDesc: Digital signature\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20160628/cbd12c6b/attachment.sig\u003e",
"sig": "6328741c3d8a98450f6786d196773138288bbdda3e2cbe6d13d87b6058ea2006de287945269c63e495f0e42c3daf504f120308e716c8740358e68c2050145e39"
}