Antbleed: A remote shutdown backdoor in antminers

[arklan]

small clarification question: IF we did end up deciding a POW change was needed, wouldn't that require a hard fork? like, even more-so than any aspect of the scaling debate?

serious question. how could we possibly ever change the algo at this point? we know full well unless it was 100% proven broken we'd never get agreement a change was needed, and even if that happened, we'd never get agreement on WHAT to change to.

[1713965667]

1713965667

[1713965667]

1713965667

[1713965667]

1713965667

[1713965667]

1713965667

[1713965667]

1713965667

[1713965667]

1713965667

[Mallyx]

small clarification question: IF we did end up deciding a POW change was needed, wouldn't that require a hard fork? like, even more-so than any aspect of the scaling debate?

Yes and yes.

serious question. how could we possibly ever change the algo at this point? we know full well unless it was 100% proven broken we'd never get agreement a change was needed, and even if that happened, we'd never get agreement on WHAT to change to.

Well, if that happen, it will be done in an emergency.
It may happen if the chain split, and the Core side is being attacked and vulnerable.
I think some few devs are already working on this in case we need to deploy the PoW HF.
It's still an extreme scenario.

[freedomno1]

small clarification question: IF we did end up deciding a POW change was needed, wouldn't that require a hard fork? like, even more-so than any aspect of the scaling debate?

Yes a hard fork would be required for any changes to the scrypt algo.

serious question. how could we possibly ever change the algo at this point? we know full well unless it was 100% proven broken we'd never get agreement a change was needed, and even if that happened, we'd never get agreement on WHAT to change to.

In the distant future the cryptographic proof will all need to be changed as ECDSA will become insecure but it is presumed to be secure until 2050.
In addition at some point we will need to slowly transition in a scrypt change on SHA-256 to what I presume will be SHA-3 if weaknesses are discovered in 256 but it will be well before it is 100% Broken. This is all speculation though and until any advantages to Sha-3 vs 256 affecting cryptanalytic attacks are found it is not a concern.
But I can imagine the fracas then although the logic that one hard fork doing a lot of things at once is better than 100 mini hard-forks for every little thing from 2013 still has weight.

Either way were far off from those forks we just need to look at the one now ^^.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=146191.0
https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=120473.msg1301958#msg1301958
https://books.google.ca/books?id=UsRsCQAAQBAJ&pg=PA128&lpg=PA128&dq=ecdsa+secure+till+2050&source=bl&ots=9qMTUSGSOG&sig=-qIrJ-MDblLYsdXV5oJMh-mimKA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiUoo-5jMTTAhUY92MKHSv_BKMQ6AEIMDAC#v=onepage&q=ecdsa%20secure%20till%202050&f=false
http://blog.oleganza.com/post/42523601710/how-to-steal-all-coins

[anonymoustroll420]

minerlink is disabled by default...

You don't understand. This phones home to the server every 10 minutes, and if the server says "false", it shuts down. Thats it. It can't be switched off on the miner, it will always try to phone home and always shutdown if it receives the command. Only way to turn it off is to block bitmains server with a firewall.

[Rabinovitch]

This is the fruits of monopoly and nothing can be done against it , which is ridiculous.

Just buy some other hardware of some other vendor. What is the problem? The problem is that most private (and even wide-scaled) miners are greedy, they need shortest possible ROI, maximum possible profit, at any cost. Even at the cost of their own safety and calmness...

[gentlemand]

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/

Patched.

I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.

[Lauda]

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/

Patched.

I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.

Nonsense. This code does what it was intended to do, therefore not a bug per definition. This makes them even look more ridiculous.


Classic example of a shill:

[franky1]

https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/

Patched.

I think this is just one of many unintentional holes out there waiting to be found. One day something will be uncovered by someone who's only out for the lulz.

Nonsense. This code does what it was intended to do, therefore not a bug per definition. This makes them even look more ridiculous.


Classic example of a shill:

1. if any brand thats not blockstream wanted to kill bitcoin they would have pulled the pin already or atleast set deadlines
2. only blockstream have the bomb and set deadlines and actual threats to the network

3. gmax found out his going soft consensus bypass was not a 'sure thing' then last month found out it hit a not so compatible afterall wall. so has now intensivied the follow blockstream demands or else strategy by employing samson mow as the UASF guy so that gmax can push segwit without taking all the flack. yup samson is the pawn to protect the queen

[Lauda]

1. if any brand thats not blockstream wanted to kill bitcoin they would have pulled the pin already or atleast set deadlines

They can't kill it, they can only harm it or attempt to kill/harm/control it. That's the whole point.

2. only blockstream have the bomb and set deadlines and actual threats to the network

Which is completely far-fetched from reality. Statements like these prove that you're either a delusional individual or a paid shill. Choose the lesser evil.

3. gmax found out his going soft consensus bypass was not a 'sure thing' then last month found out it hit a not so compatible afterall wall. so has now intensivied the follow blockstream demenads or else strategy by employing samson mow as the UASF guy so that gmax can push segwit without taking all the flack. yup samson is the pawn to protect the queen

This has no relevance to my post, the thread or anything at all actually (putting aside it being nonsensical).

[franky1]

2. only blockstream have the bomb and set deadlines and actual threats to the network

Which is completely far-fetched from reality. Statements like these prove that you're either a delusional individual or a paid shill.

bip 9
deadline from november 2016 - november 2017

BIP9 changed to a new quorum sensing approach that is MUCH less vulnerable to false triggering, so 95% under it is more like 99.9% (C) under the old approach.  basically when it activates, the 95% will have to be willing to potentially orphan the blocks of the 5% that remain(B)
If there is some reason when the users of Bitcoin would rather have it activate at 90%  ... then even with the 95% rule the network could choose to activate it at 90% just by orphaning the blocks of the non-supporters until 95%+ of the remaining blocks signaled activation.(A)

a->b->c

UASF deadline from august 2017 to november 2017

if there are still nay sayers.. a mandatory activation by late 2018

blockstream cannot take no for an answer
instead of doubling down on threats.. the blockstream team and fanboys should think of plan B
if they are going to pull a pin actually recode sgwit to be 1 merkle and a proper network wide 4mb that is also dynamic and add other community desird features.
dont waste the blockstream triggered hard fork event if soft fails to activate, purely to push opposition away, use it to unite the community with proper non cesspit creating network

[franky1]

3. gmax found out his going soft consensus bypass was not a 'sure thing' then last month found out it hit a not so compatible afterall wall. so has now intensivied the follow blockstream demenads or else strategy by employing samson mow as the UASF guy so that gmax can push segwit without taking all the flack. yup samson is the pawn to protect the queen

This has no relevance to my post, the thread or anything at all actually (putting aside it being nonsensical).

this topic is about finding a bug in anything thats not in full core support. where the core group are trying to find any excuse to pull the UASF pin on pools to get their way

[Lauda]

bip 9
deadline from november 2016 - november 2017

Describing what could happen has nothing to do with threats, bombs or anything that you've specified. BIP9 is much better than the previous way of activating soft forks (if miners are acting rationally, which currently they are not).

UASF deadline from august 2017 to november 2017

Core has nothing to do with UASF.

if they are going to pull a pin actually recode sgwit to be 1 merkle and a proper network wide 4mb that is also dynamic and add other community desird features.
dont waste the blockstream triggered hard fork event if soft fails to activate, purely to push opposition away, use it to unite the community with proper non cesspit creating network

Nonsense from you, yet again.

this topic is about finding a bug in anything thats not in full core support. where the core group are trying to find any excuse to pull the UASF pin on pools to get their way

Proof that Core found this/exposed it? Oh right, there isn't any.

[Techray]

....
This is very very old 'news' and been mentioned lord how many times in the past.
As mentioned earlier it was for the Minerlink service. The early s7's used to have a page on the Bitmain GUI to set it, was removed after maybe batch-10 or so.

Like ANY remote monitor program/service (Awesome Miner comes to mind) the miners must periodically be polled to see how they are doing. Only difference here is it was a cloud service and ran by Bitmain.

As posted earlier: If ya don't like it just re-direct the query to localhost. 'Problem' solved.

Yes for whatever reason, the code still remains and YES Bitmain should remove it since it serves no purpose and is a needless 'possible feature'.

One purpose of the feature is that it can remotely turn off the miner if it is stolen. Is that a good feature?

[pereira4]

Lmao. This pretty much invalidates anything jonald the troll says from now on. The blocksize obsessed trolls/paid shills can't see beyond what number the blocksize has.
A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network? Who cares, just raise the blocksize!!
Those trolls should be banned.

[achow101]

Bitmain has officially reponded: https://blog.bitmain.com/en/antminer-firmware-update-april-2017/

They claim that it was intended to be a feature but was never completed. The code in question has been removed from some of the publicly available sources on Github and in the firmware update they published.

[franky1]

A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network?

if you think jihan owns the whole 9time of posting) 67% nay sayer/abstainers.. then maybe its time you done some research

i find it funny how all the blockstreamists are throwing around the 70% 'control' and blame jihan, bomb jihan bomb china, without doing any realistic and rational thinking

reddit scripts are sounding too much like fox new scripts these days..

western countries wants the middle-east (1900-2000)
western countries bomb the middle east (otterman war-iraq/gulf wars)
middle east fight back
western countries throw a victim card and do the fox news media stories of 'bomb them, bomb them bomb them'

blockstream wants bitcoin as theirs, where blockstream is the engine and at the centre of bitcoin.. at its 'core'
blockstream REKT anything outside of blockstream support
anything outside of blockstream support fight back
blockstream throw a victim card and do the reddit script stories of 'bomb them, bomb them bomb them'

[achow101]

if you think jihan owns the whole 9time of posting) 67% nay sayer/abstainers.. then maybe its time you done some research

No one claims that Jihan directly controls 70% of the hashrate. Rather the claim is that 70% of the hashrate is using Bitmain's hardware. With this vulnerability, they (or anyone who can MITM or DNS hijack) can stop all of that hashrate from mining.

[franky1]

the claim is that 70% of the hashrate is using Bitmain's hardware.

proof of claim? please dont refer to reddit or twitter

P.S achow, remember last year i presented the anyonecanspend issue and for a month you said it was nothing.

now ask yourself a year later
1. why is core is coded to prevent old nodes (downstream) from getting unconfirmed segwit keys
2. why is core is coded to prevent old pools allowed to add a segwit tx in a non segwit block

have a nice day.. it only took months for them to realise the risks and then change a few things, including waiting till way after segwit activates before releasing the wallet activated version of segwit on mainnet

p.p.s
are you and lauda still making money from people with core issues, and not even bothering to report the issue to core to fix so fture people dont run into the issue?

[achow101]

the claim is that 70% of the hashrate is using Bitmain's hardware.

proof of claim? please dont refer to reddit or twitter

I have no proof of that claim, nor do I claim that it is true. I am simply stating that that is what people are saying, not that they are saying that Bitmain directly controls that much hashpower (which is what you said).

[Darkbot]

https://ip.bitcointalk.org/?u=http%3A%2F%2Fi.imgur.com%2Fib2xnNn.png&t=576&c=OC-lDjgqk4tzvA

Lmao. This pretty much invalidates anything jonald the troll says from now on. The blocksize obsessed trolls/paid shills can't see beyond what number the blocksize has.
A guy has a mining monopoly capable of killing the network? Who cares, just raise the blocksize!!
Those trolls should be banned.

+1

Here we have it R.I.P BU Troll Jonald Fyookball and paid shill Franky1.