May want to add a link to the verification file and the signature to use to verify it.

hmm...  http://sourceforge.net/apps/wordpress/sourceforge/2011/01/27/sourceforge-net-attack-update/  they still seem to be around,  also recall issues  7 years or so back.  They also do not need to compromise sf,  just the accounts that can update the bitcoin stuff.  Hopefully it is not the same user  account that can update the binaries and change the bitcoin.org page!



The simple idea is that adding another factor makes distributing compromised binaries a lot more likely to be caught quickly.  It also gives me as a user some steps I can take to try and protect myself, rather then waiting for someone else to maybe verify it.  How often is it being checked really?  When set up properly I should at least know that it required tampering with two sites and/or two different users to spoof me. (of course I need to make sure my dns is not spoofed etc etc.... but this would still be a lot better then how it is right now)

It still all is moot though.  As the bitcoin.org site itself is hosted on sourceforge.  So even now that I know this,  I am still not protected, as you are right I can not trust the site to confirm sf is not giving me bad files, even knowing who's sig to now check.

One issue brought up was what if some government orders sf to plant a tampered binary.  They say give all those Freedoinians this binary instead.  Now  sf sets up geotargeting so they get those binaries and their version of the sf page.  Even knowing to check it with Jeff's signature, they get results that say it is ok.  Odds that the people that do check the signature are in the targeted country are also pretty low.  If the person that can check is not being targeted,  it does not matter that they can check even if they do it ever minute.

May a bittorent distribution could be used as well?

Yeah, I probably inadvertently picked up his usage of the terms, as the first I really learned about this was talking to him at a Usenix conference.

Should be true,  but where does it show who is supposed to be signing it and the information for me to check it?  Right now if someone else signed it , or it even showed up as an unsigned file, as a user, downloading from the links on the front page, would I ever know? I still need more information from a source that is not sf to test this.

While we are on this side topic,  I would like to point out that hosting the signature files right along side the binaries is also probably not the best idea.  If I can replace files on sf I would just replace both now.

That is the right authors, but not the later paper,  they have another one that shows it to be much weaker yet.  Came out about 3 or 4 months later.  Unfortunately, the authors got denied a visa to present it at a conference in the USA.  It would not surprise me to learn they are further along with this now, but have stopped the English papers.    It is not recommended to use sha-1 in any new projects any more.  I personally would use two very different hashing algos to publish official binaries for  something like bitcoins.


I do think we may be using different definitions,  I think you are talking about what I would call cracked, and it is not cracked yet in any public papers I know of.

It is broken.  Think it was in '05.  I remember it being a Chinese paper that showed this.   If really need be I can probably dig up the links.

sha-1 was broken about six years ago now, and even if it was not, whatever has it being used could be  broken tomorrow.  So always better for something important to use two very different hashes. The link to those hashes is not obvious at all from the link to the downloads on the main page.  A link to them should be added.

Yes.  It is also easy enough to do yourself.  You could also use the alternative client instead.

I would say are the one pissed.  That is the known case of it locking up.   Does not mean more do not exist.   Would hardly be suprising now would it.  In this case the issue was the exchange coind frezing though was it not?  Going to tell me it is not generating new addresses?     It makes sense,  but not till you improve your ability to comprehend.

Gee just read one post up.  Work on your reading skill a bit, you may learn more then posting more worthless posts.

Nah man.  I know how to spell it.  Even fixed it for you before your second worthless reply.  People get distracted in the middle of posts,  emails etc....  the ability to read through typos and some weird replacements done   by spell checker and the resulting hasty editing during distractions and such is well known on forums.  The real problem is you are one of the lowest of the low dwellers on a forum, the small minded grammar and spelling police  that is either too dumb to do this, or pretends they are.    Like I said, if you read that and thought jam, you have issues.  Since you figured out the word pretty easily it seems, I guess you are just being an ass.

Why could he also not just have a shifted schedule? 

I would not bet against your hypothesis though.

It seems i0coin was made with a branch of bitcoin that has known locking issues when it generates new a new address.
So it may just have a reason.

Jam?  If you think in that context a word would be about jam, you have some real mental issues.

While effectively doing a 51% attack and invalidating everyone else blocks.  Curious did you do this out of malice towards the new blockchain  (which your message about it being a ponzia scheme seems to indicate you think is a bad thing to have),  ignorance,  just did not care, or you wanted to show the effects as an experiment?

Since when does a hacker sleep at night?

May have been easier, but  it would not have been quicker.  You still would have had to wait for all the block to be downloaded.   

there is a forced client upgrade coming, but too late to get into that I guess.  There will be another needed for merged mining probably?  But then,  with merged mining this change probably is no longer needed.