Re: [tor-dev] [RFC] Proposal for the encoding of prop224 onion addresses

[Philipp Winter <phw@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Sun, Mar 26, 2017 at 09:27:37PM +1100, teor wrote:
> > On 26 Jan 2017, at 10:19, teor <teor2345@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> >>> onion_address = base32(pubkey || checksum || version)
> >
> > Is the order in which the address is encoded once the checksum is
> > calculated. checksum represents (the first two bytes of) the result of
> > the SHA3 hash.
> >
> > We put pubkey first so that humans can distinguish addresses.
> > (We could put checksum first, but that's non-standard.)
>
> I just talked with some people who run a large onion site.
>
> They asked if we can put the checksum at the front of the encoded
> address.
>
> This makes phishing with different bit(s) in the tail of the address
> much harder. (That is, searching for a matching prefix for an existing
> address is much harder if the checksum changes the first two characters
> unpredictably. People ignore the checksum if it's at the end.)

The issue extends to vanity domains, which may do more harm than good as
they condition people to recognise onion domains by their prefix, but
I'm not aware of any research to back up that assumption.  See also:
<https://moderncrypto.org/mail-archive/messaging/2015/001928.html>
_______________________________________________
tor-dev mailing list
tor-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.torproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tor-dev