mirror of
https://github.com/bitcoinbook/bitcoinbook
synced 2024-12-23 15:18:11 +00:00
77942dd2e1
- s/bitcoin/Bitcoin/ when appropriate - Proof of work is only part of security - Mining is separate from verificatino - Kill BIP38 encrypted private keys section (mention seeds instead)
289 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext
289 lines
16 KiB
Plaintext
[[ch11]]
|
|
== Bitcoin Security
|
|
|
|
Securing your bitcoins is challenging because bitcoins are
|
|
are not like a balance in a bank account. Your bitcoins are very
|
|
much like digital cash or gold. You've probably heard the expression,
|
|
"Possession is nine-tenths of the law." Well, in Bitcoin, possession is
|
|
ten-tenths of the law. Possession of the keys to spend certain bitcoins is
|
|
equivalent to possession of cash or a chunk of precious metal. You can
|
|
lose it, misplace it, have it stolen, or accidentally give the wrong
|
|
amount to someone. In every one of these cases, users have no recourse,
|
|
just as if they dropped cash on a public sidewalk.
|
|
|
|
However, the Bitcoin system has capabilities that cash, gold, and bank accounts do
|
|
not. A Bitcoin wallet, containing your keys, can be backed up like any
|
|
file. It can be stored in multiple copies, even printed on paper for
|
|
hard-copy backup. You can't "back up" cash, gold, or bank accounts.
|
|
Bitcoin is different enough from anything that has come before that we
|
|
need to think about securing your bitcoins in a novel way too.
|
|
|
|
=== Security Principles
|
|
|
|
((("security", "security principles", id="Sprinc11")))((("decentralized
|
|
systems", "security of")))The core principle in Bitcoin is
|
|
decentralization and it has important implications for security. A
|
|
centralized model, such as a traditional bank or payment network,
|
|
depends on access control and vetting to keep bad actors out of the
|
|
system. By comparison, a decentralized system like Bitcoin pushes the
|
|
responsibility and control to the users. Because the security of the network
|
|
is based on independent verification, the network can be open
|
|
and no encryption is required for Bitcoin traffic (although encryption
|
|
can still be useful).
|
|
|
|
On a traditional payment network, such as a credit card system, the
|
|
payment is open-ended because it contains the user's private identifier
|
|
(the credit card number). After the initial charge, anyone with access
|
|
to the identifier can "pull" funds and charge the owner again and again.
|
|
Thus, the payment network has to be secured end-to-end with encryption
|
|
and must ensure that no eavesdroppers or intermediaries can compromise
|
|
the payment traffic, in transit or when it is stored (at rest). If a bad
|
|
actor gains access to the system, he can compromise current transactions
|
|
_and_ payment tokens that can be used to create new transactions. Worse,
|
|
when customer data is compromised, the customers are exposed to identity
|
|
theft and must take action to prevent fraudulent use of the compromised
|
|
accounts.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is dramatically different. A Bitcoin transaction authorizes only
|
|
a specific value to a specific recipient and cannot be forged.
|
|
It does not reveal any private information, such as the
|
|
identities of the parties, and cannot be used to authorize additional
|
|
payments. Therefore, a Bitcoin payment network does not need to be
|
|
encrypted or protected from eavesdropping. In fact, you can broadcast
|
|
bitcoin transactions over an open public channel, such as unsecured WiFi
|
|
or Bluetooth, with no loss of security.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's decentralized security model puts a lot of power in the hands
|
|
of the users. With that power comes responsibility for maintaining the
|
|
secrecy of their keys. For most users that is not easy to do, especially
|
|
on general-purpose computing devices such as internet-connected
|
|
smartphones or laptops. Although Bitcoin's decentralized model prevents
|
|
the type of mass compromise seen with credit cards, many users are not
|
|
able to adequately secure their keys and get hacked, one by one.
|
|
|
|
==== Developing Bitcoin Systems Securely
|
|
|
|
((("decentralized systems", "bitcoin as")))The most important principle
|
|
for Bitcoin developers is decentralization. Most developers will be
|
|
familiar with centralized security models and might be tempted to apply
|
|
these models to their Bitcoin applications, with disastrous results.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin's security relies on decentralized control over keys and on
|
|
independent transaction validation by users. If you want to leverage
|
|
Bitcoin's security, you need to ensure that you remain within the
|
|
Bitcoin security model. In simple terms: don't take control of keys away
|
|
from users and don't outsource validation.
|
|
|
|
For example, many early Bitcoin exchanges concentrated all user funds in
|
|
a single "hot" wallet with keys stored on a single server. Such a design
|
|
removes control from users and centralizes control over keys in a single
|
|
system. Many such systems have been hacked, with disastrous consequences
|
|
for their customers.
|
|
|
|
Unless you are prepared to invest heavily in operational security,
|
|
multiple layers of access control, and audits (as the traditional banks
|
|
do) you should think very carefully before taking funds outside of
|
|
Bitcoin's decentralized security context. Even if you have the funds and
|
|
discipline to implement a robust security model, such a design merely
|
|
replicates the fragile model of traditional financial networks, plagued
|
|
by identity theft, corruption, and embezzlement. To take advantage of
|
|
Bitcoin's unique decentralized security model, you have to avoid the
|
|
temptation of centralized architectures that might feel familiar but
|
|
ultimately subvert bitcoin's security.
|
|
|
|
==== The Root of Trust
|
|
|
|
((("root of trust concept")))Traditional security architecture is based
|
|
upon a concept called the _root of trust_, which is a trusted core used
|
|
as the foundation for the security of the overall system or application.
|
|
Security architecture is developed around the root of trust as a series
|
|
of concentric circles, like layers in an onion, extending trust outward
|
|
from the center. Each layer builds upon the more-trusted inner layer
|
|
using access controls, digital signatures, encryption, and other
|
|
security primitives. As software systems become more complex, they are
|
|
more likely to contain bugs, which make them vulnerable to security
|
|
compromise. As a result, the more complex a software system becomes, the
|
|
harder it is to secure. The root of trust concept ensures that most of
|
|
the trust is placed within the least complex part of the system, and
|
|
therefore least vulnerable, parts of the system, while more complex
|
|
software is layered around it. This security architecture is repeated at
|
|
different scales, first establishing a root of trust within the hardware
|
|
of a single system, then extending that root of trust through the
|
|
operating system to higher-level system services, and finally across
|
|
many servers layered in concentric circles of diminishing trust.
|
|
|
|
((("mining and consensus", "security and consensus")))Bitcoin security
|
|
architecture is different. In Bitcoin, the consensus system creates a
|
|
trusted public ledger that is completely decentralized. A correctly
|
|
validated blockchain uses the genesis block as the root of trust,
|
|
building a chain of trust up to the current block. Bitcoin systems can
|
|
and should use the blockchain as their root of trust. When designing a
|
|
complex Bitcoin application that consists of services on many different
|
|
systems, you should carefully examine the security architecture in order
|
|
to ascertain where trust is being placed. Ultimately, the only thing
|
|
that should be explicitly trusted is a fully validated blockchain. If
|
|
your application explicitly or implicitly vests trust in anything but
|
|
the blockchain, that should be a source of concern because it introduces
|
|
vulnerability. A good method to evaluate the security architecture of
|
|
your application is to consider each individual component and evaluate a
|
|
hypothetical scenario where that component is completely compromised and
|
|
under the control of a malicious actor. Take each component of your
|
|
application, in turn, and assess the impacts on the overall security if
|
|
that component is compromised. If your application is no longer secure
|
|
when components are compromised, that shows you have misplaced trust in
|
|
those components. A Bitcoin application without vulnerabilities should
|
|
be vulnerable only to a compromise of the Bitcoin consensus mechanism,
|
|
meaning that its root of trust is based on the strongest part of the
|
|
Bitcoin security architecture.
|
|
|
|
The numerous examples of hacked Bitcoin exchanges serve to underscore
|
|
this point because their security architecture and design fails even
|
|
under the most casual scrutiny. These centralized implementations had
|
|
invested trust explicitly in numerous components outside the Bitcoin
|
|
blockchain, such as hot wallets, centralized ledger databases,
|
|
vulnerable encryption keys, and similar schemes.((("",
|
|
startref="Sprinc11")))
|
|
|
|
=== User Security Best Practices
|
|
|
|
((("security", "user security best practices", id="Suser11")))((("use
|
|
cases", "user security best practices", id="UCsecurity11")))Humans have
|
|
used physical security controls for thousands of years. By comparison,
|
|
our experience with digital security is less than 50 years old. Modern
|
|
general-purpose operating systems are not very secure and not
|
|
particularly suited to storing digital money. Our computers are
|
|
constantly exposed to external threats via always-on internet
|
|
connections. They run thousands of software components from hundreds of
|
|
authors, often with unconstrained access to the user's files. A single
|
|
piece of rogue software, among the many thousands installed on your
|
|
computer, can compromise your keyboard and files, stealing any bitcoins
|
|
stored in wallet applications. The level of computer maintenance
|
|
required to keep a computer virus-free and trojan-free is beyond the
|
|
skill level of all but a tiny minority of computer users.
|
|
|
|
Despite decades of research and advancements in information security,
|
|
digital assets are still woefully vulnerable to a determined adversary.
|
|
Even the most highly protected and restricted systems, in financial
|
|
services companies, intelligence agencies, and defense contractors, are
|
|
frequently breached. Bitcoin creates digital assets that have intrinsic
|
|
value and can be stolen and diverted to new owners instantly and
|
|
irrevocably. This creates a massive incentive for hackers. Until now,
|
|
hackers had to convert identity information or account tokens—such as
|
|
credit cards and bank accounts—into value after compromising them.
|
|
Despite the difficulty of fencing and laundering financial information,
|
|
we have seen ever-escalating thefts. Bitcoin escalates this problem
|
|
because it doesn't need to be fenced or laundered; it is intrinsic value
|
|
within a digital asset.
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin also creates the incentives to improve computer
|
|
security. Whereas previously the risk of computer compromise was vague
|
|
and indirect, Bitcoin makes these risks clear and obvious. Holding
|
|
bitcoins on a computer serves to focus the user's mind on the need for
|
|
improved computer security. As a direct result of the proliferation and
|
|
increased adoption of Bitcoin and other digital currencies, we have seen
|
|
an escalation in both hacking techniques and security solutions. In
|
|
simple terms, hackers now have a very juicy target and users have a
|
|
clear incentive to defend themselves.
|
|
|
|
Over the past three years, as a direct result of Bitcoin adoption, we
|
|
have seen tremendous innovation in the realm of information security in
|
|
the form of hardware encryption, key storage and hardware wallets,
|
|
multisignature technology, and digital escrow. In the following sections
|
|
we will examine various best practices for practical user security.
|
|
|
|
==== Physical Bitcoin Storage
|
|
|
|
((("storage", "physical bitcoin storage")))((("paper
|
|
wallets")))((("wallets", "types of", "paper wallets")))((("paper
|
|
wallets", see="also wallets")))Because most users are far more
|
|
comfortable with physical security than information security, a very
|
|
effective method for protecting bitcoin is to convert them into physical
|
|
form. Bitcoin keys, and the seeds used to create them, are nothing more than long numbers. This means that
|
|
they can be stored in a physical form, such as printed on paper or
|
|
etched on a metal coin. Securing the keys then becomes as simple as
|
|
physically securing a printed copy of the key seed. A seed
|
|
that is printed on paper is called a "paper backup," and
|
|
many wallets can create them.
|
|
Keeping bitcoins
|
|
offline is called _cold storage_ and it is one of the most effective
|
|
security techniques. A cold storage system is one where the keys are
|
|
generated on an offline system (one never connected to the internet) and
|
|
stored offline either on paper or on digital media, such as a USB memory
|
|
stick.
|
|
|
|
==== Hardware Signing Devices
|
|
|
|
((("hardware
|
|
signing devices")))In the long term, Bitcoin security may increasingly take the
|
|
form of tamper-proof hardware signing devices. Unlike a smartphone or desktop
|
|
computer, a Bitcoin hardware signing device has just one purpose: to hold
|
|
keys securely. Without general-purpose software to compromise and
|
|
with limited interfaces, hardware signing devices can deliver an almost
|
|
foolproof level of security to nonexpert users. Hardware
|
|
signing devices may become the predominant method of bitcoin storage.
|
|
|
|
==== Balancing Risk
|
|
|
|
((("risk, balancing and diversifying", seealso="security")))Although
|
|
most users are rightly concerned about theft of thir bitcoins, there is an even
|
|
bigger risk. Data files get lost all the time. If they contain Bitcoin keys,
|
|
the loss is much more painful. In the effort to secure their Bitcoin
|
|
wallets, users must be very careful not to go too far and end up losing
|
|
their bitcoins. In July 2011, a well-known Bitcoin awareness and education
|
|
project lost almost 7,000 bitcoin. In their effort to prevent theft, the
|
|
owners had implemented a complex series of encrypted backups. In the end
|
|
they accidentally lost the encryption keys, making the backups worthless
|
|
and losing a fortune. Like hiding money by burying it in the desert, if
|
|
you secure your bitcoins too well you might not be able to find it again.
|
|
|
|
==== Diversifying Risk
|
|
|
|
Would you carry your entire net worth in cash in your wallet? Most
|
|
people would consider that reckless, yet Bitcoin users often keep all
|
|
their bitcoin using a single wallet application. Instead, users should spread the risk
|
|
among multiple and diverse Bitcoin applications. Prudent users will keep only
|
|
a small fraction, perhaps less than 5%, of their bitcoins in an online or
|
|
mobile wallet as "pocket change." The rest should be split between a few
|
|
different storage mechanisms, such as a desktop wallet and offline (cold
|
|
storage).
|
|
|
|
==== Multisig and Governance
|
|
|
|
((("multisig addresses")))((("addresses", "multisig
|
|
addresses")))Whenever a company or individual stores large amounts of
|
|
bitcoin, they should consider using a multisignature Bitcoin address.
|
|
Multisignature addresses secure funds by requiring more than one
|
|
signature to make a payment. The signing keys should be stored in a
|
|
number of different locations and under the control of different people.
|
|
In a corporate environment, for example, the keys should be generated
|
|
independently and held by several company executives, to ensure no
|
|
single person can compromise the funds. Multisignature addresses can
|
|
also offer redundancy, where a single person holds several keys that are
|
|
stored in different locations.
|
|
|
|
==== Survivability
|
|
|
|
((("survivability")))((("digital asset executors")))((("passwords",
|
|
"survivability and")))((("security", "passwords")))One important
|
|
security consideration that is often overlooked is availability,
|
|
especially in the context of incapacity or death of the key holder.
|
|
Bitcoin users are told to use complex passwords and keep their keys
|
|
secure and private, not sharing them with anyone. Unfortunately, that
|
|
practice makes it almost impossible for the user's family to recover any
|
|
funds if the user is not available to unlock them. In most cases, in
|
|
fact, the families of Bitcoin users might be completely unaware of the
|
|
existence of the bitcoin funds.
|
|
|
|
If you have a lot of bitcoins, you should consider sharing access details
|
|
with a trusted relative or lawyer. A more complex survivability scheme
|
|
can be set up with multi-signature access and estate planning through a
|
|
lawyer specialized as a "digital asset executor."((("",
|
|
startref="Suser11")))((("", startref="UCsecurity11")))
|
|
|
|
=== Conclusion
|
|
|
|
Bitcoin is a completely new, unprecedented, and complex technology. Over
|
|
time we will develop better security tools and practices that are easier
|
|
to use by nonexperts. For now, Bitcoin users can use many of the tips
|
|
discussed here to enjoy a secure and trouble-free Bitcoin experience.
|