[Planned][Trading Platform] Technical questions for linux experts

[Halbert]

Hi,

we are planning to realize a new cryptcoin trading platform with some very exciting new features for handling that large amount of new altcoins released every day. I can't go too much into detail, yet because we are still at the planning phase. Once we set up the alpha version, we'll feed you with more information about this exciting project!  

Though we have many skills in programming and administrating linux, we would want to know your opinions on some security relevant topics.
Our main goal is to keep the whole exchange platform and especially the wallets safe.
To realize our idea, it is very important to prevent any interference between the wallets on the server. We must make sure to run the wallets within a sandboxed or virtualized environment because there is the possibility that one wallet attacks the other ones or the server by executing custom code.

Therefore, we thought about sandboxing or virtualizing mehtods that need to fulfill these requirements:

• - Very high level of security
• - High performance and scalability

Our current ideas are the following:

• 1 - Run the wallets in a virtualized environment. This well need a dedicated OpenVZ or KVM instance for each wallet running on the sever. Though this would probably allow the maximum level of security and a good scalability, we have concerns about performance issues. How much CPU and RAM resources does a wallet, that is used for a trading platform, need?
• 2 - Using sudo, chroot or systrace to sandbox the wallets. While this solution would be the most performant, I have some concerns about the level of security. Is it possible to escape from a sandbox when you have the possibility to execute custom code on the server?

I would be pleased to hear your opinions about our two ideas and of course I would also like to hear new ideas on how to solve this problem.

Thank you in advance and regards! :-)

[1715170797]

1715170797

[1715170797]

1715170797

[1715170797]

1715170797

[1715170797]

1715170797

[1715170797]

1715170797

[instoftech]

There is confusion in your question. Which of the follow are you worried about exactly?

1) potential interference between different altcoin wallets?

My comment: why would there be any interference? Many people install several coin wallets on the same machine and they get along quite well.

2) interference across wallets belonging to different users?

My comment: If you're worried about this, you should rethink the way you implement multi-user wallet management. Check out my other response on this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=406742.msg4441020#msg4441020  Hint: you only run one single wallet instance for the whole website.

[monsterer]

No, he's worried about malicious code embedded into alt-coin clients which would have access to the user on the server where they are located.

IMO this is quite a tertiary worry. Of much more importance is that of attackers gaining root access to the machine where the wallets are located, executing a few commands and emptying all the coins.

That has been the most common attack vector in bitcoin related businesses. Better to design something to secure the coins where you assume the attacker already has root access.

Cheers, Paul.

[archit]

No, he's worried about malicious code embedded into alt-coin clients which would have access to the user on the server where they are located.

IMO this is quite a tertiary worry. Of much more importance is that of attackers gaining root access to the machine where the wallets are located, executing a few commands and emptying all the coins.

That has been the most common attack vector in bitcoin related businesses. Better to design something to secure the coins where you assume the attacker already has root access.

Cheers, Paul.

I am working with him on this, actually what we want is just a list of security tips from the community so that we can ensure maximum level of it nad what he said.

There is confusion in your question. Which of the follow are you worried about exactly?

1) potential interference between different altcoin wallets?

My comment: why would there be any interference? Many people install several coin wallets on the same machine and they get along quite well.

2) interference across wallets belonging to different users?

My comment: If you're worried about this, you should rethink the way you implement multi-user wallet management. Check out my other response on this topic: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=406742.msg4441020#msg4441020  Hint: you only run one single wallet instance for the whole website.

No that's not what he meant. We are worried about malicious code in the wallet(I can't go into much details right now)

[coinrevo]

Sorry, but your questions imply you are lacking basic knowledge on bitcoin related security. in terms of containers, see this: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/93322/lxc-containers-as-a-sandbox-environment  You can use different virtual layers, but thats not the important part. the major cryptocurrencies should not be malicious. engaging in trade of potentially malicious alt-coin nodes -> not a good idea, unless you know what you're doing (inspect the source and make a judgement).

[archit]

Sorry, but your questions imply you are lacking basic knowledge on bitcoin related security. in terms of containers, see this: http://unix.stackexchange.com/questions/93322/lxc-containers-as-a-sandbox-environment  You can use different virtual layers, but thats not the important part. the major cryptocurrencies should not be malicious. engaging in trade of potentially malicious alt-coin nodes -> not a good idea, unless you know what you're doing (inspect the source and make a judgement).

That's just what we are talking about, is it possible to break out of sandbox and what resources should a wallet take if we decide to run it in a virtual environment. The whole point of this trading platform is to satisfy the needs for the alt-coin hype

[coinrevo]

alt-coins with potentially malicious code belong in the trash can. one thing "customers" should pay such a platform for is doing the security review.

[archit]

alt-coins with potentially malicious code belong in the trash can. one thing "customers" should pay such a platform for is doing the security review.

Of course they do belong in the trash can and the code for wallet will be verified but it's isn't really wise to take any chances.