Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193] helo=mx.sourceforge.net) by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1VphaH-0000uo-0m for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:51:57 +0000 Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com designates 209.85.192.175 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.192.175; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com; helo=mail-pd0-f175.google.com; Received: from mail-pd0-f175.google.com ([209.85.192.175]) by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) id 1VphaG-0001fc-Bp for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:51:56 +0000 Received: by mail-pd0-f175.google.com with SMTP id w10so3746040pde.6 for ; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 08:51:50 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.66.14.41 with SMTP id m9mr16326489pac.123.1386521510445; Sun, 08 Dec 2013 08:51:50 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.70.81.170 with HTTP; Sun, 8 Dec 2013 08:51:50 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: References: <52A3C8A5.7010606@gmail.com> <1795f3067ba3fcdd0caf978cc59ff024.squirrel@fruiteater.riseup.net> Date: Sun, 8 Dec 2013 08:51:50 -0800 Message-ID: From: Gregory Maxwell To: Drak Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-) X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net. See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details. -1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for sender-domain 0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider (gmaxwell[at]gmail.com) -0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record 0.0 URIBL_BLOCKED ADMINISTRATOR NOTICE: The query to URIBL was blocked. See http://wiki.apache.org/spamassassin/DnsBlocklists#dnsbl-block for more information. [URIs: zikula.org] -0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from author's domain 0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature, not necessarily valid -0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature -0.0 RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE RBL: Sender listed at http://www.dnswl.org/, no trust [209.85.192.175 listed in list.dnswl.org] X-Headers-End: 1VphaG-0001fc-Bp Cc: Bitcoin Dev Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Dedicated server for bitcoin.org, your thoughts? X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 08 Dec 2013 16:51:57 -0000 On Sun, Dec 8, 2013 at 2:00 AM, Drak wrote: > There is really no excuse for not using an SSL certificate. Without one i= t > would be trivial for an attacker to change the contents of the page via > MITM. Having control of the site gives you a cert regardless, as several CAs will issue a cert to anyone who can make a http page appear at a specific URL at the domain when requested via the CA over http. It really is darn near pretextual security in this kind case=E2=80=94 only protecting you against attacks near the client, not the server=E2=80=94 but= as Wladimir says, it's expected and I don't see how it would be a harm. The revocation argument is somewhat interesting, especially since any such site should use HSTS or otherwise a downgrade attack is trivial.