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
|
Received: from sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.193]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>) id 1YIRbf-0008Ak-T2
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:44:43 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.178 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.178; envelope-from=pieter.wuille@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f178.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f178.google.com ([209.85.213.178])
by sog-mx-3.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1YIRbf-0001BW-4n
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:44:43 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f178.google.com with SMTP id hl2so21014423igb.5
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 02 Feb 2015 16:44:37 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.107.3.36 with SMTP id 36mr25078946iod.92.1422924277626; Mon,
02 Feb 2015 16:44:37 -0800 (PST)
Received: by 10.50.20.229 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:44:37 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <CAAS2fgQjTq1M6fF5KDiZ-qBrCWjs9z5VKtj-c1ghRfDeK6iyPA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBhk7F2OHT64i2LNSjv8DR5tD3RJkLJGzPGZW8OPQTCjQw@mail.gmail.com>
<87egqnwt7g.fsf@rustcorp.com.au>
<CAPg+sBjQAi_hCcoV0gecVQAd4PYKzRd5F_nymz8UVt9BFg8O2Q@mail.gmail.com>
<CAAS2fgQjTq1M6fF5KDiZ-qBrCWjs9z5VKtj-c1ghRfDeK6iyPA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 2 Feb 2015 16:44:37 -0800
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBjjYLf4NZ8ezK7ML_OO-e6C8_V1i12AXejjrgp+wFB-pg@mail.gmail.com>
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
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
(pieter.wuille[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
X-Headers-End: 1YIRbf-0001BW-4n
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures
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: Tue, 03 Feb 2015 00:44:43 -0000
On Sun, Jan 25, 2015 at 6:48 AM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com> wrote:
> So I think we should just go ahead with R/S length upper bounds as
> both IsStandard and in STRICTDER.
I would like to fix this at some point in any case.
If we want to do that, we must at least have signatures with too-long
R or S values as non-standard.
One way to do that is to just - right now - add a patch to 0.10 to
make those non-standard. This requires another validation flag, with a
bunch of switching logic.
The much simpler alternative is just adding this to BIP66's DERSIG
right now, which is a one-line change that's obviously softforking. Is
anyone opposed to doing so at this stage?
--
Pieter
|
