cablepair
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:23:08 AM |
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
|
|
|
|
cypherdoc
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1764
Merit: 1002
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:24:26 AM |
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
you would think so whats the excuse for not doing this?
|
|
|
|
stick_theman
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:24:42 AM |
|
Wow that's one heck of an attack. Terribly sorry to hear about the loss but hopefully you can recouperate in some way with the company or community.
Is Linode like a version of Linux or server software, or just a hosting company such as 1&1, Dreamhost, GoDaddy etc.? I suppose whether it is Windows, Linux, or Mac, if someone knows what they are doing it doesn't matter what software runs the wallet. A user could get to the right files if they know.
Looks like Linode is just a hosting company. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinodeI heard from Slush's thread that the Super Admin at Linode can login to any of the virtual server/websites, including Slush's mining pool and Bitcoinica. I think MtGox should take note... possibly migrate to a non-US server?? I bet there's a team of people, be it insider or outsider, poppin' toasting champagne right now, as this is a concerted effort to bring down bitcoins.
|
|
|
|
zhoutong (OP)
VIP
Hero Member
Offline
Activity: 490
Merit: 502
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:24:49 AM |
|
You’re a class act for standing behind your business and accepting the burden of loss yourself.
Your losses can be decreased substantially if you wait to reimburse your clients until after the associated market drop that will follow this event.
+1 but I have to ask, is there something I am missing here, why was this wallet with over $200k worth of bitcoins not encrypted with a strong password? The root password has been changed via the customer service interface at Linode. The ruby gem we were using to process Bitcoin withdrawals did not support encrypted wallets. We have already migrated to a secure hosting with only intranet incoming access.
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1020
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:26:04 AM |
|
Looks like Linode is just a hosting company. Link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LinodeI heard from Slush's thread that the Super Admin at Linode can login to any of the virtual server/websites, including Slush's mining pool and Bitcoinica. I think MtGox should take note... possibly migrate to a non-US server?? I bet there's a team of people, be it insider or outsider, poppin' toasting champagne right now, as this is a concerted effort to bring down bitcoins. This doesn't hurt bitcoin. It makes bitcoin stronger. What doesn't kill us makes us stronger, more aware of the danger.
|
|
|
|
chrisrico
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:26:12 AM |
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
you would think so whats the excuse for not doing this? If payments were automated, it would have to decrypt the keys at some point... What may have prevented this is multi sig transactions.
|
|
|
|
bearbones
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:26:43 AM |
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
Obviously the software running against the hot wallet has to have access to it. This means that if someone roots the server, they'll be able to have the same access to the hot wallet. Encryption would not have entered into it. Zhou, good on you for covering this! I'm having a hard enough time covering the BTCinch theft; I can only imagine how pissed you are at linode.
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1020
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:27:43 AM |
|
Obviously the software running against the hot wallet has to have access to it. This means that if someone roots the server, they'll be able to have the same access to the hot wallet. Encryption would not have entered into it.
Zhou, good on you for covering this! I'm having a hard enough time covering the BTCinch theft; I can only imagine how pissed you are at linode.
Zhou could have reduced his loss significantly by reducing the amount of bitcoin that were in the hot wallet. It could be 10,000 bitcoin, for example.
|
|
|
|
cablepair
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:27:59 AM |
|
so basically the problem here is no one was using encrypted wallets because the web apps they were connected to were not compatible damn what a shame thats a lot of money props to the OP for doing the right thing.
|
|
|
|
smickles
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:31:49 AM |
|
so basically the problem here is no one was using encrypted wallets because the web apps they were connected to were not compatible
yeah... no
|
|
|
|
Clipse
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:33:32 AM |
|
Not trying to heat up the waves but whats the chances the recent dump is related to these coins.
As much as I hate regulation of any kind, I hope Mark can look at the person(s) dumping right now and see if the coins they moved is part of the coins stolen.
|
...In the land of the stale, the man with one share is king... >> ClipseWe pay miners at 130% PPS | Signup here : Bonus PPS Pool (Please read OP to understand the current process)
|
|
|
cablepair
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:33:41 AM |
|
yeah .... no?
explain to me how I am wrong.
|
|
|
|
bitcoinBull
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 826
Merit: 1001
rippleFanatic
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:34:11 AM |
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
Obviously the software running against the hot wallet has to have access to it. This means that if someone roots the server, they'll be able to have the same access to the hot wallet. Encryption would not have entered into it. Zhou, good on you for covering this! I'm having a hard enough time covering the BTCinch theft; I can only imagine how pissed you are at linode. In this case, encryption would have protected the wallet because the attacker was only able to get root access after a reboot.
|
College of Bucking Bulls Knowledge
|
|
|
cablepair
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:34:35 AM |
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
Obviously the software running against the hot wallet has to have access to it. This means that if someone roots the server, they'll be able to have the same access to the hot wallet. Encryption would not have entered into it. Zhou, good on you for covering this! I'm having a hard enough time covering the BTCinch theft; I can only imagine how pissed you are at linode. In this case, encryption would have protected the wallet because the attacker was only able to get root access after a reboot. thank you.
|
|
|
|
drakahn
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:35:29 AM |
|
so basically the problem here is no one was using encrypted wallets because the web apps they were connected to were not compatible damn what a shame thats a lot of money props to the OP for doing the right thing. even if the 'web apps' were compatible, they would need to know the encryption key, so anyone with access would also have the encryption key
|
14ga8dJ6NGpiwQkNTXg7KzwozasfaXNfEU
|
|
|
smickles
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:36:00 AM |
|
yeah .... no?
explain to me how I am wrong.
as was mentioned before, the wallet would have to be decrypted at some point in time to use it, the attacker had root access so they would see the unencrypted wallet. This means that an encrypted wallet would not have help out at all.
|
|
|
|
kiba
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 980
Merit: 1020
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:36:23 AM |
|
In this case, encryption would have protected the wallet because the attacker was only able to get root access after a reboot.
AND mutlisignature AND low amount of BTC in your hot wallet in case your defense in depth got bypassed.
|
|
|
|
smickles
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:38:02 AM |
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
Obviously the software running against the hot wallet has to have access to it. This means that if someone roots the server, they'll be able to have the same access to the hot wallet. Encryption would not have entered into it. Zhou, good on you for covering this! I'm having a hard enough time covering the BTCinch theft; I can only imagine how pissed you are at linode. In this case, encryption would have protected the wallet because the attacker was only able to get root access after a reboot. why would a reboot stop the attacker from seeing the wallet being unencrypted during the next use?
|
|
|
|
bbit
Legendary
Offline
Activity: 1330
Merit: 1000
Bitcoin
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:38:08 AM |
|
In this case, encryption would have protected the wallet because the attacker was only able to get root access after a reboot.
AND mutlisignature AND low amount of BTC in your hot wallet in case your defense in depth got bypassed. this ^^
|
|
|
|
btc_artist
Full Member
Offline
Activity: 154
Merit: 102
Bitcoin!
|
|
March 02, 2012, 04:41:13 AM |
|
i mean seriously, could not this whole thing been prevented if the wallet was just encrypted?
Obviously the software running against the hot wallet has to have access to it. This means that if someone roots the server, they'll be able to have the same access to the hot wallet. Encryption would not have entered into it. Zhou, good on you for covering this! I'm having a hard enough time covering the BTCinch theft; I can only imagine how pissed you are at linode. In this case, encryption would have protected the wallet because the attacker was only able to get root access after a reboot. why would a reboot stop the attacker from seeing the wallet being unencrypted during the next use? You have to enter the wallet password/passphrase after rebooting/restarting bitcoin.
|
BTC: 1CDCLDBHbAzHyYUkk1wYHPYmrtDZNhk8zf LTC: LMS7SqZJnqzxo76iDSEua33WCyYZdjaQoE
|
|
|
|