Delivery-date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 14:13:20 -0700
Sender: bitcoindev@googlegroups.com
Date: Tue, 27 Aug 2024 14:10:15 -0700 (PDT)
From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail.com>
To: Bitcoin Development Mailing List <bitcoindev@googlegroups.com>
Message-Id: <a647a2e2-2742-4b0e-ae84-6f84b018136fn@googlegroups.com>
Subject: [bitcoindev] Demonstrating Pinning Attacks under Real-World Conditions
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; 
	boundary="----=_Part_78084_259696461.1724793015692"
Precedence: list
Mailing-list: list bitcoindev@googlegroups.com; contact bitcoindev+owners@googlegroups.com

------=_Part_78084_259696461.1724793015692
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; 
	boundary="----=_Part_78085_2002175145.1724793015692"

------=_Part_78085_2002175145.1724793015692
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"

Hi list,

I'm following-up on Dave Harding''s proposition in another recent email 
thread.

> How would that work? AFAIK, there's no LN software using TRUC, very few 
> relay nodes are using it (since it isn't yet enabled by default in a 
> release version), and no miners are using it (again, since it hasn't 
> been released). I'm willing to put money at stake to settle a 
> disagreement that can't be settled with words, but I want to at least 
> learn something from the process. 

I think it would benefit greatly the bitcoin ecosystem to have in place few
lightning nodes running on mainnet, against which folks can freely exercise 
sophisticated cross-layers attacks (e.g pinning) to demonstrate their 
feasibility
and severity, in a plain fashion.

Indeed, this is one thing to execute an attack on a private regtest or even
testnet, another on mainnet in real-world conditions where the results can 
be
evaluated and discussed by a wide audience. I already call to put in place 
such 
attack demonstration experiences in the past (cf. in the context of the 
transaction
relay workshop in 2021 [0]) and it would be more akin to the research 
standards
at major sec confs demanding for artifacts.

So if we have more candidates, beyond Dave, who wish to put in place 
"free-to-pown"
lightning nodes, the basic setup could be the following for useful demo 
attacks results:
- a full-node (e.g core or btcd)
- a ligtning node (e.g core-lightning / ldk / lnd)
- running default mainnet setting for both softwares

What else ?

It is more interesting to run with default mainnet settings, as testnet / 
regtest
have usually myriads of specific behaviors and have all the real mempools 
congestion
cycles to deal with. As someone wishing to do attack demo, I'm fine pouring 
the satoshis
funds to open new channels, you only need to be above the dust threshold to 
exercise
interesting attacks.

A cynical observer of bitcoin and lightning protocol development (of which, 
of course
I'm not !), could say that given the level of technical complexity of a 
full-node
software and a lightning implementation and the hardness to evaluate 
cross-layer attacks like pinning, some lightning domain experts and 
maintainers are deliberately abusing the  belief of lightning end-users 
about the protocol robustness and as such misleading end-users about the 
safety of their moneys (and LSPs about the viability of their economics 
units) [1].

From the viewpoint of a security researcher wishing to demonstrate the 
feasibility
and severity of some cross-layers attacks in bitcoin, having running public 
nodes would
be very useful. There is also the option to do that on private infra and 
come back with
a trace on mainnet, though it would lose its public verifiability aspect.

My utmost pleasure to demonstrate some pinning attacks on nodes under 
real-world conditions.

Cheers,
Antoine
ots hash: 63f58d2557beef5eb1b04f530f91d3febd682ae078933790fcdc1ac94356cf40

[0] 
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/018925.html
[1] And on that regard, it's often the ones who are spending their time on 
social medias
and numerous podcasts whining about the purity of their intention or always 
recalling their FOSS veterans credentials as some mark of authority who are 
the more suspicious to falter about some sense of accountability towards 
end-users...It can be good to re-read Nietzsche.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Bitcoin Development Mailing List" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a647a2e2-2742-4b0e-ae84-6f84b018136fn%40googlegroups.com.

------=_Part_78085_2002175145.1724793015692
Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hi list,<br /><br />I'm following-up on Dave Harding''s proposition in anot=
her recent email thread.<br /><br />&gt; How would that work? AFAIK, there'=
s no LN software using TRUC, very few <br />&gt; relay nodes are using it (=
since it isn't yet enabled by default in a <br />&gt; release version), and=
 no miners are using it (again, since it hasn't <br />&gt; been released). =
I'm willing to put money at stake to settle a <br />&gt; disagreement that =
can't be settled with words, but I want to at least <br />&gt; learn someth=
ing from the process. <br /><br />I think it would benefit greatly the bitc=
oin ecosystem to have in place few<br />lightning nodes running on mainnet,=
 against which folks can freely exercise <br />sophisticated cross-layers a=
ttacks (e.g pinning) to demonstrate their feasibility<br />and severity, in=
 a plain fashion.<br /><br />Indeed, this is one thing to execute an attack=
 on a private regtest or even<br />testnet, another on mainnet in real-worl=
d conditions where the results can be<br />evaluated and discussed by a wid=
e audience. I already call to put in place such <br />attack demonstration =
experiences in the past (cf. in the context of the transaction<br />relay w=
orkshop in 2021 [0]) and it would be more akin to the research standards<br=
 />at major sec confs demanding for artifacts.<br /><br />So if we have mor=
e candidates, beyond Dave, who wish to put in place "free-to-pown"<br />lig=
htning nodes, the basic setup could be the following for useful demo attack=
s results:<br />- a full-node (e.g core or btcd)<br />- a ligtning node (e.=
g core-lightning / ldk / lnd)<br />- running default mainnet setting for bo=
th softwares<br /><br />What else ?<br /><br />It is more interesting to ru=
n with default mainnet settings, as testnet / regtest<br />have usually myr=
iads of specific behaviors and have all the real mempools congestion<br />c=
ycles to deal with. As someone wishing to do attack demo, I'm fine pouring =
the satoshis<br />funds to open new channels, you only need to be above the=
 dust threshold to exercise<br />interesting attacks.<br /><br />A cynical =
observer of bitcoin and lightning protocol development (of which, of course=
<br />I'm not !), could say that given the level of technical complexity of=
 a full-node<br />software and a lightning implementation and the hardness =
to evaluate cross-layer attacks like pinning, some lightning domain experts=
 and maintainers are deliberately abusing the =C2=A0belief of lightning end=
-users about the protocol robustness and as such misleading end-users about=
 the safety of their moneys (and LSPs about the viability of their economic=
s units) [1].<br /><br />From the viewpoint of a security researcher wishin=
g to demonstrate the feasibility<br />and severity of some cross-layers att=
acks in bitcoin, having running public nodes would<br />be very useful. The=
re is also the option to do that on private infra and come back with<br />a=
 trace on mainnet, though it would lose its public verifiability aspect.<br=
 /><br />My utmost pleasure to demonstrate some pinning attacks on nodes un=
der real-world conditions.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Antoine<br />ots hash: 6=
3f58d2557beef5eb1b04f530f91d3febd682ae078933790fcdc1ac94356cf40<br /><br />=
[0] https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/018925=
.html<br />[1] And on that regard, it's often the ones who are spending the=
ir time on social medias<br />and numerous podcasts whining about the purit=
y of their intention or always recalling their FOSS veterans credentials as=
 some mark of authority who are the more suspicious to falter about some se=
nse of accountability towards end-users...It can be good to re-read Nietzsc=
he.<br />

<p></p>

-- <br />
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups &=
quot;Bitcoin Development Mailing List&quot; group.<br />
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an e=
mail to <a href=3D"mailto:bitcoindev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com">bitcoind=
ev+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com</a>.<br />
To view this discussion on the web visit <a href=3D"https://groups.google.c=
om/d/msgid/bitcoindev/a647a2e2-2742-4b0e-ae84-6f84b018136fn%40googlegroups.=
com?utm_medium=3Demail&utm_source=3Dfooter">https://groups.google.com/d/msg=
id/bitcoindev/a647a2e2-2742-4b0e-ae84-6f84b018136fn%40googlegroups.com</a>.=
<br />

------=_Part_78085_2002175145.1724793015692--

------=_Part_78084_259696461.1724793015692--