Bitcoin Forum
December 07, 2016, 02:40:33 PM *
News: Latest stable version of Bitcoin Core: 0.13.1  [Torrent].
 
   Home   Help Search Donate Login Register  
Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: A serious security update that should be made.  (Read 2175 times)
Ampix0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile WWW
May 23, 2011, 03:17:02 AM
 #1

Though the bitcoin network may be incredibly secure. There is one flaw in the bitcoin system. And that is fraud.  Right now, If i steal your computer. or infect your computer with a simple program that would email me your wallet.dat file I would have access to all your money. No problem. There is 0 security for fruad.

How ever! The solution is incredibly simple. A simple key based encryption algorithm of the wallet.dat file(For example: AES, RC4, and RSA) . The wallet.dat file would be kept encrypted but the bitcoin application will simply prompt you with a "Pin" dialog where you enter your specific passkey to decrypt the wallet.dat file.

And this information would be temporarily stored in memory. Now no one but you could ever access your wallet.

Advertised sites are not endorsed by the Bitcoin Forum. They may be unsafe, untrustworthy, or illegal in your jurisdiction. Advertise here.
kjj
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1302



View Profile
May 23, 2011, 03:36:29 AM
 #2

Why wouldn't the attacker wait for you to decrypt the wallet (so that you can use it), and then read the private keys out of memory?

p2pcoin: a USB/CD/PXE p2pool miner - 1N8ZXx2cuMzqBYSK72X4DAy1UdDbZQNPLf - todo
I routinely ignore posters with paid advertising in their sigs.  You should too.
Ampix0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile WWW
May 23, 2011, 03:45:47 AM
 #3

An attacker could use a keylogger and get your password but.. thats it. And the decrypted wallet.dat file would be stored in memory until the app is closed.

Basiley
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 03:48:18 AM
 #4

or he is just hit you by wrench. or kidnap you family and then demand "surrender me your BTC's !!" or promise hit Liberty island/UN/RedCross with airbus or kill little cute kitty and etc and etc.
gusti
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 1102


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 03:52:16 AM
 #5

maybe an encrypted wallet + virtual keyboard against keyloggers

If you don't own the private keys, you don't own the coins.
Basiley
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 03:54:03 AM
 #6

maybe an encrypted wallet + virtual keyboard against keyloggers
that should work along with two-way auth.
for example, smart card or iris scanner[just recently one company breached market with inexpensive $99 iris USB-scanners] - baked.
Ampix0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile WWW
May 23, 2011, 03:55:05 AM
 #7

Really I think the virtual keyboard is actually a step too far. I hate them. maybe a slide out option to open one, but don't force it. But I mean.. they way things stand as they are right now... In about 20 mins I could could a fairly undetectable "Virus" that gives me a copy of your wallet.dat and I could sit back watch you gain money and take it when I please. And the way to fix this problem is VERY simple.

Basiley
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 04:01:36 AM
 #8

Really I think the virtual keyboard is actually a step too far. I hate them. maybe a slide out option to open one, but don't force it. But I mean.. they way things stand as they are right now... In about 20 mins I could could a fairly undetectable "Virus" that gives me a copy of your wallet.dat and I could sit back watch you gain money and take it when I please. And the way to fix this problem is VERY simple.
you shouldn't "hate" then, cuz kbd wiretapping is so usual practice for both gov't and corporate spies so you can't rely on it at all :[
error
Hero Member
*****
Offline Offline

Activity: 574



View Profile
May 23, 2011, 04:15:52 AM
 #9

We're way ahead of you.

15UFyv6kfWgq83Pp3yhXPr8rknv9m6581W
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 09:14:58 AM
 #10

This would give users a false sense of security.  It would offer very little protection against viruses or hackers who know what they are doing.  All they have to do is sit around and wait until you spend some coins.

The weakest link in the security chain IMO is not lack of wallet encryption but lack of a good firewall.

What we need more badly than automatic wallet encryption is a live CD/ live USB stick with a pre-configured firewall that has been tested for intrustion.

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
Ampix0
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 168



View Profile WWW
May 23, 2011, 10:49:09 AM
 #11

Ha XD look at that. This is already being done almost exactly as I suggested. Great minds think alike.

jib
Member
**
Offline Offline

Activity: 84


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 10:52:54 AM
 #12

This would give users a false sense of security.  It would offer very little protection against viruses or hackers who know what they are doing.

Then how come every competent person uses passphrases for their SSH keys and GPG keys and considers it a good thing? I guess we should remove the feature from those programs because it provides a false sense of security?

Looking forward to quantum computing so we can have qubitcoins.
Mike Hearn
Legendary
*
expert
Offline Offline

Activity: 1526


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 11:31:17 AM
 #13

It provides security against some threats but not all. It's still good to have, especially on servers.

For the case of sending Bitcoins from a malware compromised machine, cloud based wallets with 2-factor auth are probably the only real solution.
Timo Y
Legendary
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 938


bitcoin - the aerogel of money


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 11:35:08 AM
 #14

This would give users a false sense of security.  It would offer very little protection against viruses or hackers who know what they are doing.

Then how come every competent person uses passphrases for their SSH keys and GPG keys and considers it a good thing? I guess we should remove the feature from those programs because it provides a false sense of security?

Competent people already encrypt their savings wallet with something like Truecrypt.  This isn't too hard to do.  So I am assuming this feature is aimed primarily at non-technical users.

It's not a bad thing to this include feature in the client, as long as you make it clear to non-technical users that the feature by itself will not protect them against thief viruses, and that additional measures are required.

GPG ID: FA868D77   bitcoin-otc:forever-d
Basiley
Jr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 42


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 11:37:04 AM
 #15

It provides security against some threats but not all. It's still good to have, especially on servers.

For the case of sending Bitcoins from a malware compromised machine, cloud based wallets with 2-factor auth are probably the only real solution.
backed up by physical security ["thief ! thief !! someone, call BitCoin policy !!" ]
and run with tamper-proof[including hijacked/wired interface/peripherals]hardware.
so TPM-alike stuff become requirement ? with fully-covered[by crypto in hardware]dataflow ?
Lilium
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Activity: 12



View Profile
May 23, 2011, 04:23:24 PM
 #16

Ha XD look at that. This is already being done almost exactly as I suggested. Great minds think alike.

"He that praises himself spatters himself."

Proxy Physical Body : 113xVaexTHoBYfDSuNFVsXTckXsf5pxEWb
mewantsbitcoins
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Activity: 126


View Profile
May 23, 2011, 04:53:41 PM
 #17

Ha XD look at that. This is already being done almost exactly as I suggested. Great minds think alike.

"He that praises himself spatters himself."
"One original thought is worth a thousand mindless quotings"
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to:  

Sponsored by , a Bitcoin-accepting VPN.
Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.19 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!