Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of petertodd.org
	designates 62.13.148.109 as permitted sender)
	client-ip=62.13.148.109; envelope-from=pete@petertodd.org;
	helo=outmail148109.authsmtp.co.uk; 
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 04:09:05 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <20141014080905.GA10545@savin.petertodd.org>
References: <CAPg+sBjbeAaTmEvqrHHU4Mb45VPyRvFxdRzz1S6+-t7ep20ZtQ@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
	protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjbeAaTmEvqrHHU4Mb45VPyRvFxdRzz1S6+-t7ep20ZtQ@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Malleable booleans
Precedence: list


--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:34:16PM -0700, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> Hi all,
>=20
> while working on a BIP62 implementation I discovered yet another type
> of malleability: the interpretation of booleans.
>=20
> Any byte array with non-zero bytes in it (ignoring the highest bit of
> the last byte, which is the sign bit when interpreting as a number) is
> interpreted as true, anything else as false. Other than numbers,
> they're not even restricted to 4 bytes. Worse, the code for dealing
> with booleans is not very consistent: OP_BOOLAND and OP_BOOLOR first
> interpret their arguments as numbers, and then compare them to 0 to
> turn them into boolean values.
>=20
> This means that scripts that use booleans as inputs will be inherently
> malleable. Given that that seems actually useful (passing in booleans
> to guide some OP_IF's during execution of several alternatives), I
> would like to change BIP62 to also state that interpreted booleans
> must be of minimal encoded size (in addition to numbers).
>=20
> Any opinions for or against?

I noticed this awhile back myself. More interestingly, I remember
noticing some non-std scripts on mainnet that had opcodes that appeared
to be attempts to solve this issue with variations of the following:

    DUP
    IF
        1 EQUALVERIFY
        <do stuff>
    ELSE
        0 EQUALVERIFY
        <do stuff>
    ENDIF

I'll have to admit, I decided to keep quiet about it because it's a good
example of how relying on BIP62 for specialty contract applications that
absolutely need to avoid malleability for security reasons is a dubious
idea; it's hard to be sure that we've really gotten every relevant case
correct.

I think a decent argument *for* doing this is that if a script author
fails to properly 'bool-ize' every boolean-using path that can have
non-minimal encodings in normal execution, you can always create a
nVersion=3D1 transaction manually to spend the output, preventing funds
=66rom getting lost. Meanwhile in the general case of a compenent script
author having the canonical bool testing in every boolean-using opcode
saves a lot of bytes.

--=20
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000147fe2005d7d4490938a7ab96901b8256dcd9d4eac78cb8c

--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
Content-Description: Digital signature

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
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==
=/2Cf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

--2oS5YaxWCcQjTEyO--