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
|
Received: from sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.191]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-4.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <gmaxwell@gmail.com>) id 1Xds7W-0002BR-C7
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:45:54 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of gmail.com
designates 209.85.213.179 as permitted sender)
client-ip=209.85.213.179; envelope-from=gmaxwell@gmail.com;
helo=mail-ig0-f179.google.com;
Received: from mail-ig0-f179.google.com ([209.85.213.179])
by sog-mx-1.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128)
(Exim 4.76) id 1Xds7V-0001Dc-F5
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:45:54 +0000
Received: by mail-ig0-f179.google.com with SMTP id h18so12896805igc.12
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.50.73.168 with SMTP id m8mr3286553igv.49.1413254747344; Mon,
13 Oct 2014 19:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.107.159.3 with HTTP; Mon, 13 Oct 2014 19:45:47 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjbeAaTmEvqrHHU4Mb45VPyRvFxdRzz1S6+-t7ep20ZtQ@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAPg+sBjbeAaTmEvqrHHU4Mb45VPyRvFxdRzz1S6+-t7ep20ZtQ@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 02:45:47 +0000
Message-ID: <CAAS2fgQXGkYgxuzDaYUr-p6Z6J0sPBGt-qg4HVMDcs3owf+90w@mail.gmail.com>
From: Gregory Maxwell <gmaxwell@gmail.com>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
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
(gmaxwell[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: 1Xds7V-0001Dc-F5
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Malleable booleans
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, 14 Oct 2014 02:45:54 -0000
On Tue, Oct 14, 2014 at 2:34 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while working on a BIP62 implementation I discovered yet another type
> of malleability: the interpretation of booleans.
>
> 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.
>
> 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).
>
> Any opinions for or against?
An argument against is that you can currently do something like this:
OP_DUP OP_IF OP_HASH160 PUSH OP_EQUALVERIFY OP_ELSE <stuff>
OP_CHECKSIGVERIFY OP_ENDIF
E.g. if your input is non-zero you're giving a hash, if it's zero
you're skipping that and running another branch.
Of course you could just encode your script another way... but by that
same logic you can 1 OP_QUALVERIFY to bool-ize any input in the true
path. The inconsistency in handling makes it more likely that script
authors will screw up with bad (for them) consequences, however.
[I just asked pieter out of band to clarify if he means "minimal
encoded size", or must be 0 or 1 minimally encoded... as the former
doesn't fix the malleability, but the later is more disruptive]
|
