š
Original date posted:2015-02-03
š Original message:>
>
> Using a desktop website and mobile device for 2/3 multisig in lieu of a
> hardware device (trezor) and desktop website (mytrezor) works, but the key
> is that the device used to input the two signatures cannot be in the same
> band. What you are protecting against are MITM attacks. The issue is that
> if a single device or network is compromised by malware, or if a party is
> connecting to a counterparty through a channel with compromised security,
> inputing 2 signatures through the same device/band defeats the purpose of
> 2/3 multisig.
>
Maybe I'm not following the conversation very well, but if you have a small
hardware device that first displays a signed payment request (BIP70) and
then only will sign what is displayed, how can a MITM attacker do anything
other than deny service? They'd have to get malware onto the signing
device, which is the vector that a simplified signing device is
specifically designed to mitigate.
TREZOR like devices with BIP70 support and third party cosigning services
are a solution I really like the sound of. I suppose though that adding
BIP70 request signature validation and adding certificate revocation
support starts to balloon the scope of what is supposed to be a very simple
device though.
Regardless, I think a standard for passing partially signed transactions
around might make sense (maybe a future extension to BIP70), with attention
to both PC <-> small hardware devices and pushing stuff around on the
Internet. It would be great if users had a choice of hardware signing
devices, local software and third-party cosigning services that would all
interoperate out of the box to enable easy multisig security, which in the
BTC world subsumes the goals of 2FA.
--adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150203/41e376c5/attachment.html>;
Adam Weiss [ARCHIVE] /
npub1vxā¦0yyl6
2023-06-07 15:29:31
in reply to nevent1qā¦0p4h
Author Public Key
npub1vxevd7hlyz7atxxa6w72vnuf75pxdemsgyjl0cej2dph7df24eqsh0yyl6Published at
2023-06-07 15:29:31Event JSON
{
"id": "e0fb443db99925845b8b259a8115136b3e38fb6512a68da34b86f1d3dc04e68c",
"pubkey": "61b2c6faff20bdd598ddd3bca64f89f50266e7704125f7e33253437f352aae41",
"created_at": 1686151771,
"kind": 1,
"tags": [
[
"e",
"4a6f0574e60dd94083ee2c44a33058d163eecce8fa7924cda65c1a095dfabb8a",
"",
"root"
],
[
"e",
"bb619e8d493ee6899ca176114b53e627ba6e0d03ccdcb0beba4f548f011f5f47",
"",
"reply"
],
[
"p",
"366b04144886caf61d1988df75165b74b9c6e3ed325d8177a2e06f4251ea7c98"
]
],
"content": "š
Original date posted:2015-02-03\nš Original message:\u003e\n\u003e\n\u003e Using a desktop website and mobile device for 2/3 multisig in lieu of a\n\u003e hardware device (trezor) and desktop website (mytrezor) works, but the key\n\u003e is that the device used to input the two signatures cannot be in the same\n\u003e band. What you are protecting against are MITM attacks. The issue is that\n\u003e if a single device or network is compromised by malware, or if a party is\n\u003e connecting to a counterparty through a channel with compromised security,\n\u003e inputing 2 signatures through the same device/band defeats the purpose of\n\u003e 2/3 multisig.\n\u003e\n\nMaybe I'm not following the conversation very well, but if you have a small\nhardware device that first displays a signed payment request (BIP70) and\nthen only will sign what is displayed, how can a MITM attacker do anything\nother than deny service? They'd have to get malware onto the signing\ndevice, which is the vector that a simplified signing device is\nspecifically designed to mitigate.\n\nTREZOR like devices with BIP70 support and third party cosigning services\nare a solution I really like the sound of. I suppose though that adding\nBIP70 request signature validation and adding certificate revocation\nsupport starts to balloon the scope of what is supposed to be a very simple\ndevice though.\n\nRegardless, I think a standard for passing partially signed transactions\naround might make sense (maybe a future extension to BIP70), with attention\nto both PC \u003c-\u003e small hardware devices and pushing stuff around on the\nInternet. It would be great if users had a choice of hardware signing\ndevices, local software and third-party cosigning services that would all\ninteroperate out of the box to enable easy multisig security, which in the\nBTC world subsumes the goals of 2FA.\n\n--adam\n-------------- next part --------------\nAn HTML attachment was scrubbed...\nURL: \u003chttp://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150203/41e376c5/attachment.html\u003e",
"sig": "9f7292bf2e54b6a2bc500767a63baa87291c1c144339082410d511e4f3a575ff5a0d20f634bd3be9fe52a18e880fefca56bb8ddc9c258e432a5d2eaccd6f9c56"
}