blob: 1f3f03b2d08277121c4a57dfb8515312103b9987 (
plain)
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
|
Received: from sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com ([172.29.43.192]
helo=mx.sourceforge.net)
by sfs-ml-1.v29.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
(envelope-from <bitcoin-list@bluematt.me>) id 1RevPs-0006ot-1b
for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:15:36 +0000
Received-SPF: pass (sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com: domain of bluematt.me
designates 173.246.101.161 as permitted sender)
client-ip=173.246.101.161;
envelope-from=bitcoin-list@bluematt.me; helo=mail.bluematt.me;
Received: from vps.bluematt.me ([173.246.101.161] helo=mail.bluematt.me)
by sog-mx-2.v43.ch3.sourceforge.com with esmtp (Exim 4.76)
id 1RevPq-0001Ak-J9 for bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net;
Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:15:35 +0000
Received: from [21.220.40.40] (66-87-118-40.pools.spcsdns.net [66.87.118.40])
by mail.bluematt.me (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 6EBD33F8
for <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>;
Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:09:18 +0100 (CET)
References: <CABsx9T0AQMYxBh_Bq3ZfviU94CbszP264eKJHwj5akQNbTTrNA@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android
In-Reply-To: <CABsx9T0AQMYxBh_Bq3ZfviU94CbszP264eKJHwj5akQNbTTrNA@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset=UTF-8
From: bitcoin-list@bluematt.me
Date: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 13:15:22 -0800
To: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <ed6f69e1-0374-4a64-b4d5-5ea3d4d96a0d@email.android.com>
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Spam-Score: -2.8 (--)
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 SPF_PASS SPF: sender matches SPF record
-1.3 RP_MATCHES_RCVD Envelope sender domain matches handover relay
domain
X-Headers-End: 1RevPq-0001Ak-J9
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] IMPORTANT: if you are running latest git
HEAD
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: Sun, 25 Dec 2011 21:15:36 -0000
Couldn't your net testing code be modified to do that to some extent?
Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen@gmail.com> wrote:
>Reposted from the forums:
>
>makomk reported a remote vulnerability that I pulled into the master
>bitcoin/bitcoin tree on December 20. If you are running git-HEAD code
>on the production network you should pull the latest code to get the
>bug fixed.
>
>This affects only anybody who has pulled and compiled their own
>bitcoind/bitcoin-qt from the source tree in the last 5 days.
>
>Gory details:
>
>I made a mistake. I refactored the ConnectInputs() function into two
>pieces (FetchInputs() and ConnectInputs()), and should have duplicated
>a check in ConnectInputs for an out-of-range
>previous-transaction-output in the FetchInputs() method. The result
>was a new method I wrote to help prevent a possible OP_EVAL-related
>denial-of-service attack (AreInputsStandard()) could crash with an
>out-of-bounds memory access if given an invalid transaction.
>
>The bug-fix puts a check in FetchInputs and an assertion in
>AreInputsStandard. This does not affect the back-ported "mining only"
>code I wrote that some miners and pools have started using.
>
>The good news is this was found and reported before binaries with the
>vulnerability were released; the bad news is this was not found before
>the code was pulled and could have made it into the next release if
>makomk had not been testing some unrelated code.
>
>Before releasing 0.6, I would like to have an "intelligent,
>bitcoin-specific fuzzing tool" that automatically finds this type of
>bug that we can run before every release. If anybody already has one,
>please speak up!
>
>--=20
>--
>Gavin Andresen
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------=
------
>Write once. Port to many.
>Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development.
>Create=20
>new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the=20
>Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity.
>appdeveloper.intel.com/join
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
|
