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
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
|
Return-Path: <user@petertodd.org>
Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org
[172.17.192.35])
by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9EE0A899
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 00:49:07 +0000 (UTC)
X-Greylist: domain auto-whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6
Received: from outmail148113.authsmtp.com (outmail148113.authsmtp.com
[62.13.148.113])
by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 14FC36DC
for <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>;
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 00:49:06 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-c245.authsmtp.com (mail-c245.authsmtp.com [62.13.128.245])
by punt20.authsmtp.com. (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTP id w560n5IB075558;
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 01:49:05 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from user@petertodd.org)
Received: from petertodd.org (ec2-52-5-185-120.compute-1.amazonaws.com
[52.5.185.120]) (authenticated bits=0)
by mail.authsmtp.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w560n2q3009136
(version=TLSv1.2 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO);
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 01:49:04 +0100 (BST)
(envelope-from user@petertodd.org)
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by petertodd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 9403D400D0;
Wed, 6 Jun 2018 00:49:02 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by localhost (Postfix, from userid 1000)
id 2E9C122043; Tue, 5 Jun 2018 20:49:01 -0400 (EDT)
Date: Tue, 5 Jun 2018 20:49:01 -0400
From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org>
To: Johnson Lau <jl2012@xbt.hk>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Message-ID: <20180606004901.zqkpro2by7xj4jpc@petertodd.org>
References: <9FC9FA73-9572-48AF-9590-68F0D298D6A0@xbt.hk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha256;
protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="vg2ioecb5bvrkrzd"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <9FC9FA73-9572-48AF-9590-68F0D298D6A0@xbt.hk>
User-Agent: NeoMutt/20170113 (1.7.2)
X-Server-Quench: 6917c3a7-6923-11e8-a283-9cb654bb2504
X-AuthReport-Spam: If SPAM / abuse - report it at:
http://www.authsmtp.com/abuse
X-AuthRoute: OCd2Yg0TA1ZIVwkA IjsJECJaVQIpKltL GxAVKBZePFsRUQkR
aAdMdgQUEkAaAgsB Am4bW1VeVFR7WWc7 bghPaBtcak9QXgdq
T0pMXVMcUwBuAUID Rx0eUhBzdAMIfXZ1 bQhkV3FcD0crclt7
S0xXCGwHMG99OWIX U11RJFFSdQcYLB1A alQxNiYHcQ5VPz4z
GA41ejw8IwAXBCVO SwUJKk1aQEAQEzUh XR1KAC4iVUoLDx4S
ADwPEX4rJ2c3HWEf WQAA
X-Authentic-SMTP: 61633532353630.1039:706
X-AuthFastPath: 0 (Was 255)
X-AuthSMTP-Origin: 52.5.185.120/25
X-AuthVirus-Status: No virus detected - but ensure you scan with your own
anti-virus system.
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.6 required=5.0 tests=BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW
autolearn=ham version=3.3.1
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on
smtp1.linux-foundation.org
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Disallow insecure use of SIGHASH_SINGLE
X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12
Precedence: list
List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion <bitcoin-dev.lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/options/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/>
List-Post: <mailto:bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
List-Help: <mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev>,
<mailto:bitcoin-dev-request@lists.linuxfoundation.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2018 00:49:07 -0000
--vg2ioecb5bvrkrzd
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Fri, Jun 01, 2018 at 02:53:01AM +0800, Johnson Lau via bitcoin-dev wrote:
> I=E2=80=99ve made a PR to add a new policy to disallow using SIGHASH_SING=
LE without matched output:
>=20
> https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/13360
>=20
> Signature of this form is insecure, as it commits to no output while user=
s might think it commits to one. It is even worse in non-segwit scripts, wh=
ich is effectively SIGHASH_NOINPUT|SIGHASH_NONE, so any UTXO of the same ke=
y could be stolen. (It=E2=80=99s restricted to only one UTXO in segwit, but=
it=E2=80=99s still like a SIGHASH_NONE.)
>=20
> This is one of the earliest unintended consensus behavior. Since these si=
gnatures are inherently unsafe, I think it does no harm to disable this uni=
ntended =E2=80=9Cfeature=E2=80=9D with a softfork. But since these signatur=
es are currently allowed, the first step is to make them non-standard.
I don't see why we should bother to soft fork this out on the basis of
security, given that there are many other ways to insecurely use private ke=
ys
(e.g. reused nonces). Maybe soft-fork it out on the basis of code complexit=
y,
but this sounds like a lot of work.
Also, I have to wonder if it's just as likely the devs might think the
non-standardness means it is secure.
--=20
https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
--vg2ioecb5bvrkrzd
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc"
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQEzBAEBCAAdFiEEFcyURjhyM68BBPYTJIFAPaXwkfsFAlsXL3gACgkQJIFAPaXw
kfsq8wf/eQgqEW2kyiOPj6qtMatonFsY8ob1uCaS7cJNIed4xW79nuHR88qWj6wr
unCxTFtCWrafSi595VHBqBss8ow19IplNAkcIPDAjmDA2uj2TNupYWtbakMJttWj
uNdPdOiPAjFnsYNwt0/3CR07bQeG6HKAyc/MP9/rqsdGNcxHxxBsq+cOamtwdAu6
dgrfFb1IgmViBtVD8xUXpFMjaNLMigZZWJ+GzKXcDTMcmb7SdDd+1PpLAKv/Pg6K
tcS40pCQEg6e+2Cf3Lu+Yf4XT/nriiRMCtsZDBWEvauhH4H7FDhfiUeXyu5dy1cn
QxeAXtS5dWOwcpvekNnBYclTJwk4hw==
=0gft
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--vg2ioecb5bvrkrzd--
|
