Re: Check out my awesome site for generating secure OfflineAddress.com
Can I persuade you to change your recommendation to downloading a ZIP file from github and validating the hash? And actively *discourage* visitors from trusting HTML loaded from a live website? Yours is the only paper wallet site recommending this approach, and I can't figure out why.
There's no reason for a visitor to believe that they derive much additional security from disconnecting from the Internet after loading the offlineaddress.com code live. As you well understand, if the RNG is compromised in the HTML they receive, it doesn't matter whether or not the visitor is still online when they generate wallets.
Your recommendation seems doubly problematic when:
1) You don't force HTTPS on your server.
2) You don't provide a mechanism for a visitor to validate the integrity of the HTML they're receiving from your website against some signed codebase of your own.
In short, you're advocating blind faith in the security of your web server. The only argument I've heard you make in support of this is that it's unrealistic to expect visitors to download a ZIP file from github and run the HTML locally. I'm really alarmed by this. I like your concern about RNGs, but I'm wary of your lack of concern about website security. You've got a nice site, good software, and strong promotion -- but you're advocating a standard of security that's much more relaxed than anyone else doing this. Why is this?
I appreciate your concerns.
Recommendation for downloading zip from GitHub will be added once code base isn't growing too fast.
If RNG is compromised users will still be secure because all random date is user-provided.
Instructing users to primary check hashes is not appealing to broad audience (you know how hard it is to check hashes or signatures on Windows machines
).Discouraging users from using loaded HTML doesn't make sense to me - there is no purpose in having website saying you shouldn't use it.
1) I'm working on this, HTTPS will be added within a week or so.
2) I provide GitHub commit ID, and hashes will be added soon.
In short: yes, there are few things that should be added (like HTTPS and hash validation), and I'm working on it.
I'm concerned about both web security and RNGs.
With my limited security background (really worked with DB's) I understand the HUGE security risks of not having HTTPS on the server. This means, at any time between now and when "the code stops growing too fast", a site wide hack can occur. And only having an "online" version is, has been said, a validation problem. Again, I'm no security expert but this just jumps out at me.
Is it worth risking the money of others here? What is the benefit? To whom? Honestly, does the user taking a risk benefit them or a potential hacker? Why take the chance?
There are sites that have the security and measures that has been brought up here. The world is looking at BTC now. There are extremely skilled hackers out there where money is involved, not to mention governments, agencies, etc. This thread is in part an advertisement for them to get ideas; A bit worrisome. We are talking about an open exploit I would say. I am giving you a website that can deal in millions of dollars and there is no HTTPS there. There is no offline validation.
It doesn't add up to me, how can a person like yourself that clearly is an expert in the area, be making some huge mistakes here? I see it and I'm no expert; I see the vulnerabilities and they scare me. I was brought to this thread because I'm always looking to see what is new in the offline wallet area and while just doing some basic checks, I noticed you had just opened your account both here and on GitHub as well. No guilt by association there, but when dealing with huge amounts of money, I'd say it is fair to look closer. If I'm off here and time bears this out, then apology in advance.
To continue, Would I use the private key I got from a website while it was online a moment before, with no means of validation and on top of that, there is no HTTPS. I can't imagine sending value there (even with the brilliant features regarding RNG's mentioned before). The RNG side may be better, but if there are some basic vulnerabilities at essentially the safe door it really doesn't matter what is below that level.
BTW, some of your ideas sound great, this isn't all criticism. I'm just trying to share what my perspective is. Just being concerned, nothing personal here.
Its about sharing