1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-2.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gavinandresen@gmail.com>) id 1R8Isy-0006jR-9r
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:38:48 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.161.47 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.161.47; envelope-from=gavinandresen@gmail.com;
helo=mail-fx0-f47.google.com;
Received: from mail-fx0-f47.google.com ([209.85.161.47])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-MD5:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1R8Isx-00046e-EM
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:38:48 +0000
Received: by fxi1 with SMTP id 1so9035507fxi.34
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.223.55.136 with SMTP id u8mr8374004fag.46.1317073121080; Mon,
26 Sep 2011 14:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.152.25.105 with HTTP; Mon, 26 Sep 2011 14:38:41 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <201109261655.59768.luke@dashjr.org>
References: <201109261517.11245.luke@dashjr.org>
<CABsx9T1gfuiHj9aR=1gDxtEqJzov5iXRqVEiEBUx-VBcearAZQ@mail.gmail.com>
<201109261655.59768.luke@dashjr.org>
Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 17:38:41 -0400
Message-ID: <CABsx9T0TN+Nzzjod7xNJk4PNHnWPMWZUVsTHP3Yxq0C_-EgBLQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com>
To: Luke-Jr <luke@dashjr.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Spam-Score: -1.6 (-)
X-Spam-Report: Spam Filtering performed by mx.sourceforge.net.
See http://spamassassin.org/tag/ for more details.
-1.5 SPF_CHECK_PASS SPF reports sender host as permitted sender for
sender-domain
0.0 FREEMAIL_FROM Sender email is commonly abused enduser mail provider
(gavinandresen[at]gmail.com)
-0.0 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-0.1 DKIM_VALID_AU Message has a valid DKIM or DK signature from
author's domain
0.1 DKIM_SIGNED Message has a DKIM or DK signature,
not necessarily valid
-0.1 DKIM_VALID Message has at least one valid DKIM or DK signature
0.0 AWL AWL: From: address is in the auto white-list
X-Headers-End: 1R8Isx-00046e-EM
Cc: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Newly introduced DoS
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: <bitcoin-development.lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://sourceforge.net/mailarchive/forum.php?forum_name=bitcoin-development>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development>,
<mailto:bitcoin-development-request@lists.sourceforge.net?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 26 Sep 2011 21:38:48 -0000
> The first one I was referring to is a *transaction* with "non-standard" sig op
> count, which is AFAIK allowed in blocks, just not accepted by the mainline
> rules.
I sit corrected. The context is:
// Checking ECDSA signatures is a CPU bottleneck, so to avoid
denial-of-service
// attacks disallow transactions with more than one SigOp per 34
bytes.
// 34 bytes because a TxOut is:
// 20-byte address + 8 byte bitcoin amount + 5 bytes of ops + 1
byte script length
if (GetSigOpCount() > nSize / 34 || nSize < 100)
return DoS(10, error("AcceptToMemoryPool() : transaction with
out-of-bounds SigOpCount"));
I'm having trouble imagining some future world where valid,
new-versions-agree-to-relay-transactions have more than one SigOp per
34 bytes; can you give an example?
> Maybe the person spending it sees it matured beyond 100 confirmations, and you
> only see 99. An attacker could use these things to get nodes to ban each
> other.
That would imply you're on a blockchain fork of more than 99 blocks
with respect to the person spending the transaction, in which case I'd
argue you have much bigger problems and it is a good idea for the DoS
code to kick in and kick either you or them off the network...
--
--
Gavin Andresen
|
