1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1QdnoO-0001qw-Ra
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:24:00 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.210.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.210.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-pz0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-pz0-f47.google.com ([209.85.210.47])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1QdnoO-0008RM-3J
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:24:00 +0000
Received: by pzk36 with SMTP id 36so3758783pzk.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 04 Jul 2011 11:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.142.245.21 with SMTP id s21mr2922474wfh.11.1309803834034; Mon,
04 Jul 2011 11:23:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.142.185.13 with HTTP; Mon, 4 Jul 2011 11:23:53 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <1309801974.3423.80.camel@Desktop666>
References: <1309801974.3423.80.camel@Desktop666>
Date: Mon, 4 Jul 2011 14:23:53 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T31ZuQHKwcNnb9-NpaCA6c43PXVZ+Tc+GZ=2Wkz08enHw@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Matt Corallo <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
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
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-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 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1QdnoO-0008RM-3J
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Encrypted Wallet Backward Compatibility
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 04 Jul 2011 18:24:00 -0000
RE: "You have some unencrypted keys, should I encrypt them for you?"
That re-opens an "attacker packs the keypool with keypairs that they
know about" (if I can read/write wallet.dat, then I can delete
encrypted keypool keys and insert a bunch of unencrypted keypool keys
that I know how to spend, and rely on the user to click "OK" because
users are trained to just click "OK").
RE: breaking backup scripts: if they use the backupwallet RPC
command, then they will Just Work.
0.4 and later could, on wallet encryption, create a wallet_e.dat
(encrypted wallet). Then truncate wallet.dat and set its
file-permissions to 000, so if old versions of bitcoin OR any dumb
wallet backup scripts try to read it they fail.
RE: future-proofing: wallet.dat contains nFileVersion (version of
bitcoin that last wrote the wallet). Adding a nMinVersion that
specifies "you must be at least THIS version to read this file" seems
like a good idea so if you have version 0.4 or later future wallet
upgrades give you a reasonable message if you try to downgrade after
an incompatible change.
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
