From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Sjors Provoost <sjors@sprovoost•nl>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: [bitcoin-dev] Why the BIP-72 Payment Protocol URI Standard is Insecure Against MITM Attacks
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 2017 22:55:38 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20170929025538.GC12303@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <B5DE4E92-C5B3-4C01-A148-E3C46C897323@sprovoost.nl>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2560 bytes --]
On Thu, Sep 28, 2017 at 03:43:05PM +0300, Sjors Provoost via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> Andreas Schildbach wrote:
> > This feels redundant to me; the payment protocol already has an
> > expiration time.
>
> The BIP-70 payment protocol has significant overhead and most importantly requires back and forth. Emailing a bitcoin address or printing it on an invoice is much easier, so I would expect people to keep doing that.
The BIP-70 payment protocol used via BIP-72 URI's is insecure, as payment qr
codes don't cryptographically commit to the identity of the merchant, which
means a MITM attacker can redirect the payment if they can obtain a SSL cert
that the wallet accepts.
For example, if I have a wallet on my phone and go to pay a
merchant, a BIP-72 URI will look like the following(1):
bitcoin:mq7se9wy2egettFxPbmn99cK8v5AFq55Lx?amount=0.11&r=https://merchant.com/pay.php?h%3D2a8628fc2fbe
A wallet following the BIP-72 standard will "ignore the bitcoin
address/amount/label/message in the URI and instead fetch a PaymentRequest
message and then follow the payment protocol, as described in BIP 70."
So my phone will make a second connection - likely on a second network with a
totally different set of MITM attackers - to https://merchant.com
In short, while my browser may have gotten the correct URL with the correct
Bitcoin address, by using the payment protocol my wallet is discarding that
information and giving MITM attackers a second chance at redirecting my payment
to them. That wallet is also likely using an off-the-shelf SSL library, with
nothing other than an infrequently updated set of root certificates to use to
verify the certificate; your browser has access to a whole host of better
technologies, such as HSTS pinning, certificate transparency, and frequently
updated root certificate lists with proper revocation (see Symantec).
As an ad-hoc, unstandardized, extension Android Wallet for Bitcoin at least
supports a h= parameter with a hash commitment to what the payment request
should be, and will reject the MITM attacker if that hash doesn't match. But
that's not actually in the standard itself, and as far as I can tell has never
been made into a BIP.
As-is BIP-72 is very dangerous and should be depreciated, with a new BIP made
to replace it.
1) As an aside, it's absolutely hilarious that this URL taken straight from
BIP-72 has the merchant using PHP, given its truly terrible track record for
security.
--
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 455 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-09-29 2:55 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 35+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-09-27 16:06 [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173 Peter Todd
2017-09-27 18:15 ` CryptAxe
2017-09-27 19:03 ` Mark Friedenbach
2017-09-27 21:20 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-27 19:35 ` Chris Priest
2017-09-27 20:11 ` CryptAxe
2017-09-27 20:23 ` Nick Pudar
2017-09-27 20:19 ` CryptAxe
2017-09-27 21:09 ` Mark Friedenbach
2017-09-27 21:15 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-28 0:22 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-09-27 21:33 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-28 0:58 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-09-29 1:50 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-29 2:06 ` Gregory Maxwell
2017-09-28 10:09 ` Andreas Schildbach
2017-09-28 12:43 ` Sjors Provoost
2017-09-28 14:13 ` Andreas Schildbach
2017-09-28 14:41 ` Sjors Provoost
2017-09-28 15:06 ` Andreas Schildbach
2017-09-28 15:45 ` Sjors Provoost
2017-09-28 16:59 ` Luke Dashjr
2017-09-29 2:18 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-29 7:18 ` Sjors Provoost
2017-09-29 2:55 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2017-09-29 4:21 ` [bitcoin-dev] Why the BIP-72 Payment Protocol URI Standard is Insecure Against MITM Attacks Omar Shibli
2017-09-29 13:14 ` Tomas
2017-09-29 17:40 ` Aymeric Vitte
2017-09-30 15:33 ` Andreas Schildbach
2017-09-29 1:45 ` [bitcoin-dev] Address expiration times should be added to BIP-173 Peter Todd
2017-09-29 8:44 ` Andreas Schildbach
2017-09-29 9:55 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-29 12:45 ` Andreas Schildbach
2017-09-29 13:52 ` Peter Todd
2017-09-29 17:25 ` Gregory Maxwell
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20170929025538.GC12303@savin.petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=sjors@sprovoost$(echo .)nl \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox