Pages:
Author

Topic: Bitcoin Security Standards Audit [BSSA] - page 3. (Read 5214 times)

legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
March 05, 2014, 04:08:07 AM
#26
No, no, and please no. This is not what bitcoin needs. We need trustless exchanges which don't have to be audited because there is no capability to lose client funds.

I laughed and then made a depressing sigh when I heard about Andreas Antonopoulos' "audit" of CoinBase. He basically said "I approve of stucking your money with these folks" -- but you shouldn't have to trust *anybody* with your money. That's the whole point of bitcoin! We have the technology to build trustless exchanges, we just need to focus the resources to do it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zgbza/i_am_building_a_free_and_fair_trustless_exchange/

From your reddit posting;

Users deposit bitcoins and other crypto assets by means of an audited gateway or pegging mechanism.

It seems your plan requires auditing too.

*facepalm* it is called trustless auditing.
hero member
Activity: 588
Merit: 501
March 05, 2014, 03:05:33 PM
#25
Due to the news of rampant thefts at Bitcoin exchanges this past week (Mt. Gox, Poloniex, Flexcoin) it is becoming apparent that there's a dire need for some security standards in the Bitcoin community to ensure compliance and build client trust.  The media is jumping over every hack story that comes out and shouting that it's insecure.  You can't blame people for thinking this way, because at this point it's a legitimate fear.

There is no question that we need a standard process for third party security experts to be able to review exchange processes and software from top to bottom.  If you know of some sort of external security company that already does this, feel free to post.

Perhaps exchanges could be verified on a certain level of compliance and receive a letter or badge to post on their website for proof of audit.  Maybe someone like Andreas Antonopoulos would be interested to open this discussion further.

Items to address in audit:

- Source code, deployment and version control procedures
- Bitcoin software and protocol implementation
- Server platform (software versions, port scanning, server logging, brute force protections, DDOS protection, backups, redundancy, etc)
- Emergency shutdown and startup procedures
- Physical security (security cameras, electronic facility monitoring, alarm systems, swipe-cards, etc)
- Use of AML / KYC procedures and encrypted offsite storage of client documents
- Offsite cold storage (multiple locations) and use of keys, with logs of all activity
- Onsite hot wallet and use of keys
- Minimum of email verification or 2-Factor Authentication mandatory for withdrawals on all client accounts
- Options for clients to set a withdrawal limit on their account (similar to a bank)
- Alerts available for unusual activity on client accounts, with additional verification option (email or phone call) in case of sudden large withdrawals
- Staff background checks
- Staff fraud prevention training
- On-site restrictions for staff electronics and storage devices
- Restricted access areas for developers and system-critical staff
- Procedures for reporting illegal or suspicious activity to law enforcement

I will add to this as more feedback comes in.  PLEASE contribute!  This is a great community and the development of this ecosystem is happening and will continue happening thanks to you!


Great work, I applaud it, the initiative shows a genuine concern for the fundamentals of the system. 

I will add that to: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=492776.0;topicseen
legendary
Activity: 1722
Merit: 1000
March 05, 2014, 02:19:03 PM
#24
Good idea IMO, any company that complies with the rules can advertise as meeting the BSSA standards.  IMO there should be no requirement to have it, people will just know if you are BSSA compliant your security is way more legit than an exhange that is not.
newbie
Activity: 13
Merit: 0
March 05, 2014, 01:47:30 PM
#23
From a social engineers stand point i can point out that some very large mining pools and exchange sites make for pretty easy targets.
I've contacted a few about it but never got a reply.
legendary
Activity: 4396
Merit: 4755
March 05, 2014, 04:36:25 AM
#22
Due to the news of rampant thefts at Bitcoin exchanges this past week (Mt. Gox, Poloniex, Flexcoin) it is becoming apparent that there's a dire need for some security standards in the Bitcoin community to ensure compliance and build client trust.  The media is jumping over every hack story that comes out and shouting that it's insecure.  You can't blame people for thinking this way, because at this point it's a legitimate fear.

There is no question that we need a standard process for third party security experts to be able to review exchange processes and software from top to bottom.  If you know of some sort of external security company that already does this, feel free to post.

Perhaps exchanges could be verified on a certain level of compliance and receive a letter or badge to post on their website for proof of audit.  Maybe someone like Andreas Antonopoulos would be interested to open this discussion further.

Items to address in audit:

- Source code, deployment and version control procedures
- Bitcoin software and protocol implementation
- Server platform (software versions, port scanning, server logging, brute force protections, DDOS protection, backups, redundancy, etc)
- Emergency shutdown and startup procedures
- Physical security (security cameras, electronic facility monitoring, alarm systems, swipe-cards, etc)
- Use of AML / KYC procedures and encrypted offsite storage of client documents
- Offsite cold storage (multiple locations) and use of keys, with logs of all activity
- Onsite hot wallet and use of keys
- Minimum of email verification or 2-Factor Authentication mandatory for withdrawals on all client accounts
- Options for clients to set a withdrawal limit on their account (similar to a bank)
- Alerts available for unusual activity on client accounts, with additional verification option (email or phone call) in case of sudden large withdrawals
- Staff background checks
- Staff fraud prevention training
- On-site restrictions for staff electronics and storage devices
- Restricted access areas for developers and system-critical staff
- Procedures for reporting illegal or suspicious activity to law enforcement

I will add to this as more feedback comes in.  PLEASE contribute!  This is a great community and the development of this ecosystem is happening and will continue happening thanks to you!

once you rip away all the FUD speculation that people think it is and then look at what the business model actually does

https://coinvalidation.com/

is what was talked about last year. try to research them, dont start tin foil hatting the business from fud that the company blacklists users. they just deal with businesses and you will realise they do alot of things listed above.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
March 05, 2014, 02:59:36 AM
#22
You do know a lot of companies hire hackers who have been charged or found guilty in a court of law to head up security for the company. So where you are quick to judge, they are actually helping you stay safe.
For a security consultant brought in to test a system for weakness, sure.  As the person supervising other programmers and writing code with no one looking over his shoulder, and that at one time crossed the line and invaded the computer systems of a company that he had no permission to invade, HELL NO.  The same reason police departments shouldn't hire murderers, rapists and robbers.  Usually such people will work with the police as paid informants, not police officers.

Karpeles was demonstrably a scam artist when he maliciously cheated a French business out of 15,000 EUR and fled the country.  This should have been discovered and publicized before MtGox got as big as it got, so only idiots would put money into that scam.

Did you just compare hackers to murderers and rapists? So for one mistake those people should never be able to change their lives around and maybe do good for themselves by running a company?

Also Mt Gox got as big as it did, cause it rode the waves of being first to market in a new economy, so they would get reported on and that gave them rep. While most of the community saw the bad signs and move to other exchanges, so you could argue that only idiots did put money into Mt Gox.

Quote
I also know of two bitcoin companies that have people with charges (not hacking) against them and you probably use them in someway. Wink So I would be completely ok with it.

If you are implying that these people have drug charges, then the problem is that they would have relationships with criminals in the drugs and money laundering business.  At this point in bitcoin's history, with the authorities casting an evil eye towards bitcoin, such employees would be a liability -- a federal prosecutor could find a way to connect the company with criminal activity, seizing and raiding it, thus killing it.  i.e. Shrem.  You have to be a big bank like HCSB to actually get away with it.

I am implying I know people who run successful bitcoin businesses that have felons and not for drugs, I bet you even use their services. Authorities aren't casting an evil eye at all. Charlie was doing stupid stuff, I am not going to get into what he was doing but he wasn't being smart.
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
March 05, 2014, 04:24:43 AM
#21
From your reddit posting;

Users deposit bitcoins and other crypto assets by means of an audited gateway or pegging mechanism.

It seems your plan requires auditing too.

There's a substantial difference between some fallible humans giving a "trust us, it's secure!" stamp of approval (what the OP is asking for), and a cryptographic receipt that can be automatically checked by your client to provide up-to-the-minute assurances of solvency (what I'm talking about in the reddit thread).
newbie
Activity: 35
Merit: 0
March 05, 2014, 04:06:55 AM
#20
No, no, and please no. This is not what bitcoin needs. We need trustless exchanges which don't have to be audited because there is no capability to lose client funds.

I laughed and then made a depressing sigh when I heard about Andreas Antonopoulos' "audit" of CoinBase. He basically said "I approve of stucking your money with these folks" -- but you shouldn't have to trust *anybody* with your money. That's the whole point of bitcoin! We have the technology to build trustless exchanges, we just need to focus the resources to do it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zgbza/i_am_building_a_free_and_fair_trustless_exchange/

From your reddit posting;

Users deposit bitcoins and other crypto assets by means of an audited gateway or pegging mechanism.

It seems your plan requires auditing too.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
March 05, 2014, 02:37:48 AM
#20
There is no central authority.

We now see one of the major downsides of this. If the bitcoin fundation would create something similar to what OP suggests we propably wouldn't have to go through all those thefts.

No this is the beauty of bitcoin! This is why I am love with it cause no one has to give me permission to start a company. This is the free market, if you don't feel safe, don't use the service. Bad actors fade and good actors stay.

This why America is a country that power is fading away from fast, we are too quick to blame someone or have a babysitter, instead use your own commonsense.

I agree with this, however I also like the concept of the original post. Everyone would still be able to start a company, but if their service is solvent and reliable and the can prove they would be rewarded with some official recognition. Just like the Bitcoin Foundation has members, some sort of team would set some requirements. If a website qualifies then let's say that they would receive a sticker.

This would help non advanced users avoid risky services and also promote solid ones over less reliable ones. In my opinion this can only make a market better.

You do realized their are people myself include who are looking for a cryptographic function to prove solvent of an exchange, which would be a lot better than anyone going to tell me that a service is solvent.

So now we have a group of people who hand out these stickers. I am rich and I am shady(pretending), I tell the group I will give them each 20 BTC because they never had 20 BTC before. They all agree, now we have corruption cause most people are listening to that group... Has it sunk in that is a huge centralization and something that will hurt bitcoin.

Moral of the story groups are not the answer, educating people on how the free market works and signs of an insolvent exchange is much better. *Insert teach a man to fish, they eat for a lifetime*
legendary
Activity: 905
Merit: 1012
March 05, 2014, 03:52:30 AM
#19
No, no, and please no. This is not what bitcoin needs. We need trustless exchanges which don't have to be audited because there is no capability to lose client funds.

I laughed and then made a depressing sigh when I heard about Andreas Antonopoulos' "audit" of CoinBase. He basically said "I approve of stucking your money with these folks" -- but you shouldn't have to trust *anybody* with your money. That's the whole point of bitcoin! We have the technology to build trustless exchanges, we just need to focus the resources to do it:

http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/1zgbza/i_am_building_a_free_and_fair_trustless_exchange/
newbie
Activity: 35
Merit: 0
March 05, 2014, 03:41:21 AM
#18
In the credit card world there is PCI DSS.  However even companies which are compliant to this standard get hacked from time to time and news of this hits the media of the thousands of credit cards stolen.

legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
March 05, 2014, 01:39:01 AM
#18
There is no central authority.

We now see one of the major downsides of this. If the bitcoin fundation would create something similar to what OP suggests we propably wouldn't have to go through all those thefts.

No this is the beauty of bitcoin! This is why I am love with it cause no one has to give me permission to start a company. This is the free market, if you don't feel safe, don't use the service. Bad actors fade and good actors stay.

This why America is a country that power is fading away from fast, we are too quick to blame someone or have a babysitter, instead use your own commonsense.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
March 05, 2014, 02:41:58 AM
#17
You do know a lot of companies hire hackers who have been charged or found guilty in a court of law to head up security for the company. So where you are quick to judge, they are actually helping you stay safe.
For a security consultant brought in to test a system for weakness, sure.  As the person supervising other programmers and writing code with no one looking over his shoulder, and that at one time crossed the line and invaded the computer systems of a company that he had no permission to invade, HELL NO.  The same reason police departments shouldn't hire murderers, rapists and robbers.  Usually such people will work with the police as paid informants, not police officers.

Karpeles was demonstrably a scam artist when he maliciously cheated a French business out of 15,000 EUR and fled the country.  This should have been discovered and publicized before MtGox got as big as it got, so only idiots would put money into that scam.

Quote
I also know of two bitcoin companies that have people with charges (not hacking) against them and you probably use them in someway. Wink So I would be completely ok with it.

If you are implying that these people have drug charges, then the problem is that they would have relationships with criminals in the drugs and money laundering business.  At this point in bitcoin's history, with the authorities casting an evil eye towards bitcoin, such employees would be a liability -- a federal prosecutor could find a way to connect the company with criminal activity, seizing and raiding it, thus killing it.  i.e. Shrem.  You have to be a big bank like HCSB to actually get away with it.
legendary
Activity: 2422
Merit: 1451
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
March 05, 2014, 02:05:54 AM
#16
There is no central authority.

We now see one of the major downsides of this. If the bitcoin fundation would create something similar to what OP suggests we propably wouldn't have to go through all those thefts.

No this is the beauty of bitcoin! This is why I am love with it cause no one has to give me permission to start a company. This is the free market, if you don't feel safe, don't use the service. Bad actors fade and good actors stay.

This why America is a country that power is fading away from fast, we are too quick to blame someone or have a babysitter, instead use your own commonsense.

I agree with this, however I also like the concept of the original post. Everyone would still be able to start a company, but if their service is solvent and reliable and the can prove they would be rewarded with some official recognition. Just like the Bitcoin Foundation has members, some sort of team would set some requirements. If a website qualifies then let's say that they would receive a sticker.

This would help non advanced users avoid risky services and also promote solid ones over less reliable ones. In my opinion this can only make a market better.
legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
March 05, 2014, 01:37:45 AM
#15
- Staff background checks

This is scary that people even want this, because background checks give up no information. They are useless if they were useful then murders would be down.

In a theoretical scenario,  if the lead programmer had a hacking charges, the company's compliance officer had identity theft charges, and the CFO had financial fraud charges, and the company never performed background checks to find this out before the hires, you would be completely OK with it?  I personally think it would be grounds to sue on gross negligence.

You do know a lot of companies hire hackers who have been charged or found guilty in a court of law to head up security for the company. So where you are quick to judge, they are actually helping you stay safe. I also know of two bitcoin companies that have people with charges (not hacking) against them and you probably use them in someway. Wink So I would be completely ok with it.
legendary
Activity: 2422
Merit: 1451
Leading Crypto Sports Betting & Casino Platform
March 05, 2014, 01:37:39 AM
#14
There is no central authority.

We now see one of the major downsides of this. If the bitcoin fundation would create something similar to what OP suggests we propably wouldn't have to go through all those thefts.
member
Activity: 107
Merit: 10
March 05, 2014, 01:32:52 AM
#13
We could create something like the UL (Underwriters Laboratories) of Bitcoin.
member
Activity: 112
Merit: 10
March 05, 2014, 01:30:20 AM
#12
- Staff background checks

This is scary that people even want this, because background checks give up no information. They are useless if they were useful then murders would be down.

In a theoretical scenario,  if the lead programmer had a hacking charges, the company's compliance officer had identity theft charges, and the CFO had financial fraud charges, and the company never performed background checks to find this out before the hires, you would be completely OK with it?  I personally think it would be grounds to sue on gross negligence.






legendary
Activity: 1498
Merit: 1000
March 05, 2014, 12:36:31 AM
#12
- Staff background checks

This is scary that people even want this, because background checks give up no information. They are useless if they were useful then murders would be down.
newbie
Activity: 57
Merit: 0
March 05, 2014, 01:21:45 AM
#11
There may need to be a hybrid approach, or perhaps an entirely new compliance organization started with Bitcoin developers and security experts.  As an example of such an individual, Andreas Antonopoulos recently did security checks for companies like Coinbase and Mt. Gox.
I tweeted Andreas the other day with a similar idea following his audit of Coinbase.  Unfortunately, he never responded (I definitely respect that he's a busy guy, so I won't hold that against him... lol).

My idea is to solicit the community for experts to step forward, be vetted by the community itself, and then get selected at random to participate in such audits.  I haven't fleshed out the entire concept, but it seems to me that this type of voluntary self-regulation would be a perfect fit for the bitcoin ecosystem.

I'd gladly throw my hat (and my resume) into the ring if this idea gains reaction.
Pages:
Jump to: