[GUIDE] How to Safely Download and Verify Electrum [Guide] - page 8.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 6415

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: ranochigo on April 26, 2021, 12:58:10 PM

Using solely the hash of the files as a validation is insecure. There is a reason why Bitcoin Core hash sums are included within a PGP signed message and users are encouraged to verify them first before trusting it.

This is exactly what I said. To upload a signed message containing the hash instead of leaving a hash solely.

There shouldn't be anything wrong with this and it's quite faster than the other method.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on April 26, 2021, 12:32:23 PM

I don't want to speak for Dabs, but I think that's the point he's trying to make. If you only rely on checksum hashes and the site is compromised, the checksums could easily be replaced by the hackers. If we rely on GPG signatures the hacker wouldn't be able to sign the releases (or a list of checksums) with ThomasV's key, and we would know something was wrong. To defeat this type of security the hacker would have to gain access to multiple unconnected servers. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

This assumes that the attacker won't also replace the PGP public key for ThomasV as well. PGP is best used in conjunction with an established web of trust which can be hard to get for some users and I would probably recommend users to at least get another source of information to validate if the imported public key is also correct.

I agree with the above sentiments as well. Using solely the hash of the files as a validation is insecure. There is a reason why Bitcoin Core hash sums are included within a PGP signed message and users are encouraged to verify them first before trusting it. Using the hashes as it is would merely serve as a way to verify data integrity but not guarantee its security.

DireWolfM14

copper member

Activity: 2142

Merit: 4219

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on April 26, 2021, 07:52:22 AM

Quote from: Dabs on April 26, 2021, 07:49:45 AM

It's a quick way to see if something is good, but without verifying the signature anyway, it's possible that the site was compromised and showing a hash that matches the executable or binary.

But if the site was compromised, and it showed a different hash, the signature using Thomas' key wouldn't be valid.

I don't want to speak for Dabs, but I think that's the point he's trying to make. If you only rely on checksum hashes and the site is compromised, the checksums could easily be replaced by the hackers. If we rely on GPG signatures the hacker wouldn't be able to sign the releases (or a list of checksums) with ThomasV's key, and we would know something was wrong. To defeat this type of security the hacker would have to gain access to multiple unconnected servers. Not impossible, but highly unlikely.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 6415

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: Dabs on April 26, 2021, 07:49:45 AM

You'd still need to verify the hash using the GPG signature.

There are other simpler ways to verify a signed message, but GPG does fine, yes.

Quote from: Dabs on April 26, 2021, 07:49:45 AM

It's a quick way to see if something is good, but without verifying the signature anyway, it's possible that the site was compromised and showing a hash that matches the executable or binary.

But if the site was compromised, and it showed a different hash, the signature using Thomas' key wouldn't be valid.

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

I like hashes such as SHA256. But it's more like a super secure checksum that your download is not corrupted. You'd still need to verify the hash using the GPG signature.

It's a quick way to see if something is good, but without verifying the signature anyway, it's possible that the site was compromised and showing a hash that matches the executable or binary.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on April 26, 2021, 04:38:08 AM

Specifically with GPG? How could that happen, I don't understand. Once you hash an executable, don't you hash its binaries?

GPG uses RSA-2048 or RSA-4096 keypairs to encrypt and decrypt messages. It just so happens that it is also possible to sign a message using RSA keypairs, where the "message" here is the binary file contents, and this makes an RSA signature along with some metadata that GPG adds. There's also a verification process[1] that exists for RSA which GPG uses to verify these signatures (which are also binary data).

[1]: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs5430/2015sp/notes/rsa_sign_vs_dec.php

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 6415

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: NotATether on April 26, 2021, 03:51:02 AM

I remember asking this before and the answer I got is that the risk of checksum collision with a bad executable is mitigated if it's signed with GPG.

Specifically with GPG? How could that happen, I don't understand. Once you hash an executable, don't you hash its binaries?

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: DireWolfM14 on April 25, 2021, 06:05:11 PM

April showers bring may flowers, and allowed me some time to work on this tutorial. I've updated the OP to include "BAD" signatures. I also rearranged the post to consolidate instructions based on operating system. I think it flows better this way.

That's great, it means I don't have to wait until a rainy November to update the Bitcoin Wiki page. It's already rainy season here anyway Wink

Quote from: BlackHatCoiner on April 26, 2021, 03:03:58 AM

Can't Thomas provide a signed hash of each executable? Why should one, that isn't familiar with GPG, go though all this procedure just to verify a signature since he/she could do that really easily?

I remember asking this before and the answer I got is that the risk of checksum collision with a bad executable is mitigated if it's signed with GPG.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 6415

Farewell, Leo

Can't Thomas provide a signed hash of each executable? Why should one, that isn't familiar with GPG, go though all this procedure just to verify a signature since he/she could do that really easily?

DireWolfM14

copper member

Activity: 2142

Merit: 4219

Join the world-leading crypto sportsbook NOW!

April showers bring may flowers, and allowed me some time to work on this tutorial. I've updated the OP to include "BAD" signatures. I also rearranged the post to consolidate instructions based on operating system. I think it flows better this way.

Suggestions are always welcome.

Dabs

legendary

Activity: 3416

Merit: 1912

The Concierge of Crypto

This is Thomas V public key as gotten from the website:

Code:

Please do not use this without checking from another source that it matches the same key from another source or someone else quotes this and says it's matched.

Fingerprint: 6694 D8DE 7BE8 EE56 31BE D950 2BD5 824B 7F94 70E6

I copied it here so we have another source that's not changed if the official website gets compromised.

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

I strongly believe this thread should be stickied by a global mod or admin. It will save us from having to repeat that using Electrum without verifying it is unsafe to use. People generally only read the first few results on a page, whether it's bitcointalk or Google, and this page doesn't even appear in google search results (well it looks something like a footnote and not an actual result).

Before people come to this board and ask a new question, this will reduce the number of people that need hand-holding.

You all agree that this should be stickied or what?

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: NotATether on December 26, 2020, 07:22:23 AM

There is a tool included with Visual Studio that lets you sign any executable before you distribute it. Most people just make a self-signed certificate and those cannot be trusted by themselves because those certificates aren't signed by a chain of CAs.

When windows displays a warning about running a program from an "unknown publisher" then it used a self-signed certificate. That's why the embedded signature can't be relied upon for Electrum integrity. Unless somebody is willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a CA to sign it.

I don't think it was self-signed. I analysed it on my VM (on an old computer, to be safe) and it appeared to be issued by DigiCert, IIRC and it didn't throw a warning to me. I don't want to download it again but I've found the MalwareBytes analysis.

https://blog.malwarebytes.com/cybercrime/2019/04/electrum-bitcoin-wallets-under-siege/

NotATether

legendary

Activity: 1568

Merit: 6660

bitcoincleanup.com / bitmixlist.org

Quote from: ranochigo on December 26, 2020, 06:45:03 AM

Also, some of the binaries during the Electrum phishing were actually digitally signed by the hackers using some presumably compromised CA.

There is a tool included with Visual Studio that lets you sign any executable before you distribute it. Most people just make a self-signed certificate and those cannot be trusted by themselves because those certificates aren't signed by a chain of CAs.

When windows displays a warning about running a program from an "unknown publisher" then it used a self-signed certificate. That's why the embedded signature can't be relied upon for Electrum integrity. Unless somebody is willing to pay hundreds of dollars for a CA to sign it.

ranochigo

legendary

Activity: 2954

Merit: 4158

Quote from: btcb3g1nn3r on December 26, 2020, 05:21:12 AM

great post, still one short question for Windows users: it's not enough to download the .exe (either installer or standalone) and to check its properties for digital signature, to see the certificates used? Can an attacker resign such .exe files with new certificates to mimic the original ones?

Good question. No and no. Hackers wouldn't be able to sign the file after modifying it's code which would result in the signature not matching for the file.

I wouldn't trust using the digital signature of the software as a guarantee that the software hasn't been modified in a malicious manner. CAs has been compromised before and some of them were able to issue fake certification to state actors or hackers. PGP is the only way to ensure that you're downloading the version that is signed by ThomasV.

Also, some of the binaries during the Electrum phishing were actually digitally signed by the hackers using some presumably compromised CA.

BlackHatCoiner

legendary

Activity: 1344

Merit: 6415

Farewell, Leo

Quote from: btcb3g1nn3r on December 26, 2020, 05:21:12 AM

great post, still one short question for Windows users: it's not enough to download the .exe (either installer or standalone) and to check its properties for digital signature, to see the certificates used? Can an attacker resign such .exe files with new certificates to mimic the original ones?

You're verifying the signature of ThomasV using his public key which is outside of the software. There is no reason to remove the certificate from the software, because the hacker's signature won't be verified using ThomasV's public key.

btcb3g1nn3r

member

Activity: 177

Merit: 32

great post, still one short question for Windows users: it's not enough to download the .exe (either installer or standalone) and to check its properties for digital signature, to see the certificates used? Can an attacker resign such .exe files with new certificates to mimic the original ones?

Chikito

legendary

Activity: 2352

Merit: 2049

Quote from: bisdak40 on May 23, 2020, 09:23:33 PM

I'm trying to acquire a "nested segwit address" from electrum but i guess it's hard for a newbie like me to download such a thing.

in the fact you are a senior member.

Open electrum wallet select already seed > select option > tick BIP39 > then select p2wpkh-p2sh:

or export your native private key then select import private key on beginning electrum then put p2wpkh-p2sh: on front.

pooya87

legendary

Activity: 3430

Merit: 10504

Quote from: bisdak40 on May 23, 2020, 09:23:33 PM

Why can't we send BTC to native segwit address in Electrum? Is this just a limitation?

I am sending from my "I'm Token" mobile wallet. It says that I should send to an address that starts with "3" or "1".

because the other wallet you are currently using and are trying to send from appears to not support Bech32 addresses which has nothing to do with bitcoin. you should complain to the developers of that wallet and ask why they haven't added a feature that has been a part of bitcoin for 3 years already!

bisdak40

hero member

Activity: 2072

Merit: 542

Why can't we send BTC to native segwit address in Electrum? Is this just a limitation?

I am sending from my "I'm Token" mobile wallet. It says that I should send to an address that starts with "3" or "1".

I'm trying to acquire a "nested segwit address" from electrum but i guess it's hard for a newbie like me to download such a thing.

Topic: [GUIDE] How to Safely Download and Verify Electrum [Guide] - page 8. (Read 22114 times)