Russell O'Connor [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2020-03-22 📝 Original message:On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at ...
📅 Original date posted:2020-03-22
📝 Original message:On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 5:43 AM Tim Ruffing <crypto at timruffing.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-03-21 at 12:59 -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> > Public keys are deterministic and can be spot checked. In fact,
> > AFAIU if hardened HD key derivations are not used, then spot checking
> > is very easy.
> >
> > While spot checking isn't ideal, my original concern with the
> > synthetic none standard proposal was that it is inherently non-
> > deterministic and cannot ever be spot checked. This is why anti-
> > covert signing protocols are so important if we are going to use
> > synthetic nonces.
>
> If spot checking means checking a few instances, then I think this is a
> pretty weak defense. What if the device starts to behave differently
> after a year?
>
I agree, which is why there perhaps is merit in using a non-hardered
derivation path so that the software side of a hardware wallet can check
the pubkey. Though I understand there are some disadvantages to the
non-hardened paths.
However, spot checking can even be done retroactively (and thoroughly).
Again, I agree that this is less than ideal, but does let you take some
action once you notice a deviation.
Your claim is that if we don't fix the pubkey issue there is no point in
fixing the signature issue. I disagree. While I think both issues need to
be fully addressed, the issues around the original proposed
non-deterministic signature scheme are far more severe. The proposal would
move us from a deterministic scheme, where spot checks are possible, with
all the caveats that entails, to a non-deterministic scheme where spot
checks are impossible. My hope is that we can standardise a scheme that
has the advantages of non-determinism without the threat of covert channels.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200322/53768608/attachment-0001.html>;
📝 Original message:On Sun, Mar 22, 2020 at 5:43 AM Tim Ruffing <crypto at timruffing.de> wrote:
> On Sat, 2020-03-21 at 12:59 -0400, Russell O'Connor wrote:
> > Public keys are deterministic and can be spot checked. In fact,
> > AFAIU if hardened HD key derivations are not used, then spot checking
> > is very easy.
> >
> > While spot checking isn't ideal, my original concern with the
> > synthetic none standard proposal was that it is inherently non-
> > deterministic and cannot ever be spot checked. This is why anti-
> > covert signing protocols are so important if we are going to use
> > synthetic nonces.
>
> If spot checking means checking a few instances, then I think this is a
> pretty weak defense. What if the device starts to behave differently
> after a year?
>
I agree, which is why there perhaps is merit in using a non-hardered
derivation path so that the software side of a hardware wallet can check
the pubkey. Though I understand there are some disadvantages to the
non-hardened paths.
However, spot checking can even be done retroactively (and thoroughly).
Again, I agree that this is less than ideal, but does let you take some
action once you notice a deviation.
Your claim is that if we don't fix the pubkey issue there is no point in
fixing the signature issue. I disagree. While I think both issues need to
be fully addressed, the issues around the original proposed
non-deterministic signature scheme are far more severe. The proposal would
move us from a deterministic scheme, where spot checks are possible, with
all the caveats that entails, to a non-deterministic scheme where spot
checks are impossible. My hope is that we can standardise a scheme that
has the advantages of non-determinism without the threat of covert channels.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20200322/53768608/attachment-0001.html>;