<oembed><type>rich</type><version>1.0</version><author_name>npub1798ncudyucap9jzzujjsgufx8tdykm8auzfledjcs6f6wf4ekqvq8lpmjt</author_name><author_url>https://nostr.ae/npub1798ncudyucap9jzzujjsgufx8tdykm8auzfledjcs6f6wf4ekqvq8lpmjt</author_url><provider_name>njump</provider_name><provider_url>https://nostr.ae</provider_url><html>📅 Original date posted:2015-02-23&#xA;📝 Original message:Den 23 feb 2015 08:38 skrev &#34;Andy Schroder&#34; &lt;info at andyschroder.com&gt;:&#xA;&gt;&#xA;&gt; I agree that NFC is the best we have as far as a trust anchor that you&#xA;are paying the right person. The thing I am worried about is the privacy&#xA;loss that could happen if there is someone passively monitoring the&#xA;connection. So, in response to some of your comments below and also in&#xA;response to some of Eric Voskuil&#39;s comments in another recent e-mail:&#xA;&#xA;&gt;From the sources I can find NFC don&#39;t provide full privacy, but some&#xA;modulations are MITM resistant to varying degrees, some aren&#39;t at all, and&#xA;they are all susceptible to denial of service via jammers.&#xA;&#xA;If the merchant system monitors the signal strength and similar metrics, a&#xA;MITM that alters data (or attempts to) should be detectable, allowing it to&#xA;shut down the connection.&#xA;&#xA;Using NFC for key exchange to establish an encrypted link should IMHO be&#xA;secure enough.&#xA;&#xA;http://resources.infosecinstitute.com/near-field-communication-nfc-technology-vulnerabilities-and-principal-attack-schema/&#xA;-------------- next part --------------&#xA;An HTML attachment was scrubbed...&#xA;URL: &lt;http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/attachments/20150223/4bea3a57/attachment.html&gt;</html></oembed>