From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (smtp1.linux-foundation.org [172.17.192.35]) by mail.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 722E097A for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:04:34 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-pg0-f50.google.com (mail-pg0-f50.google.com [74.125.83.50]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 83E941F2 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 20:04:32 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-pg0-f50.google.com with SMTP id m9so1266437pgd.3 for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 13:04:32 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=friedenbach-org.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date:in-reply-to:cc:to :references; bh=thLTRHBzx3hAti/Ci+TQFWjH3oJfvJJXRbGrHcy2V4w=; b=FFmLiyCZaSkegVh0XAMvXvvvBejUmRVGZk92qkOJeMhlalpf7AF24+asiXLaf5TSsR Hg6qbq+XqFU1c3481eIeF7C8VP8AW+bzKHPMBzoRrMOGOFhXeTsWMvmIeMsX2/KN1Neu gLvQA2x8/X5GavtasaFb8sCIdLLImbwrSGUgS/eYhQ1z73vo73iUDoznjeUwjztKeZ6S rS0kpkry2HCtCH0pjBGUqkQzunmPbiMo81mGWx2pLSezHs0Ctk3H8Bn9gGKBqSj+m9q1 m0KUnIB5kN6zjKGrhLYDCuifXGuSpPYLYwrtraxYUqPP7ah3dK6lxLJCzQk2YfxBFSq8 uhSA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:from:message-id:mime-version:subject:date :in-reply-to:cc:to:references; bh=thLTRHBzx3hAti/Ci+TQFWjH3oJfvJJXRbGrHcy2V4w=; b=V8k7deWW8wFGn1D9I+Ru5wJ9JVz+rROW0echZq+Uhx56NMXHugtB3Ysj9rDusYXZcA uV3MDftUT+ZioZEzchyHPLVEw5OL8YvQuElxDtIkVbTEKOk/jLvHlOIzRPMkJLx6AS1n hGDtrCnPbVty84S6K6j0J4F5n5tdDRfNeyKUemvApIWSmlrAoxuprbFZ8aZqM7z5Fav7 QCvRr9bXfLQrEdtJF8lX+ruOIRwig4DVoRYcbI/N1bC1TKLvX9deiubIcWmbEsYfgGSe S/aPS8RoE8CF5VpvN8OKYBlebTQQL5b0Lvp+l29NV/wvFDs6b1GCIa3G/vXn2sZ7of1z VXNg== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUhD7EJgv0VIr0V5K3uEa9gLTsQ8HwO6GYuqB4ICfjtDNPBWN/Nu M/dacgRF53/jyl31F++uFg== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb5RsqSrHXFf7y43kzOMVlgYnWtnPlO/OT9nbQeYE66jM3dBa5MaJDU5em7mBUqC8McS3KSUPA== X-Received: by 10.98.71.153 with SMTP id p25mr592563pfi.84.1504814672024; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 13:04:32 -0700 (PDT) Received: from ?IPv6:2607:f598:b1e8:fa00:d403:8426:8563:3c5e? ([2607:f598:b1e8:fa00:d403:8426:8563:3c5e]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id a5sm569308pfh.66.2017.09.07.13.04.30 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 07 Sep 2017 13:04:30 -0700 (PDT) From: Mark Friedenbach Message-Id: <40D6F502-3380-4B64-BCD9-80D361EED35C@friedenbach.org> Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="Apple-Mail=_2F828574-A4BF-4E5C-8038-569FC539BB4C" Mime-Version: 1.0 (Mac OS X Mail 10.3 \(3273\)) Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 13:04:30 -0700 In-Reply-To: To: Russell O'Connor References: X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.3273) X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.0 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org X-Mailman-Approved-At: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:08:57 +0000 Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Fast Merkle Trees X-BeenThere: bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.12 Precedence: list List-Id: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2017 20:04:34 -0000 --Apple-Mail=_2F828574-A4BF-4E5C-8038-569FC539BB4C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii TL;DR I'll be updating the fast Merkle-tree spec to use a different IV, using (for infrastructure compatability reasons) the scheme provided by Peter Todd. This is a specific instance of a general problem where you cannot trust scripts given to you by another party. Notice that we run into the same sort of problem when doing key aggregation, in which you must require the other party to prove knowledge of the discrete log before using their public key, or else key cancellation can occur. With script it is a little bit more complicated as you might want zero-knowledge proofs of hash pre-images for HTLCs as well as proofs of DL knowledge (signatures), but the basic idea is the same. Multi- party wallet level protocols for jointly constructing scriptPubKeys should require a 'delinearization' step that proves knowledge of information necessary to complete each part of the script, as part of proving the safety of a construct. I think my hangup before in understanding the attack you describe was in actualizing it into a practical attack that actually escalates the attacker's capabilities. If the attacker can get you to agree to a MAST policy that is nothing more than a CHECKSIG over a key they presumably control, then they don't need to do any complicated grinding. The attacker in that scenario would just actually specify a key they control and take the funds that way. Where this presumably leads to an actual exploit is when you specify a script that a curious counter-party actually takes the time to investigate and believes to be secure. For example, a script that requires a signature or pre-image revelation from that counter-party. That would require grinding not a few bytes, but at minimum 20-33 bytes for either a HASH160 image or the counter-party's key. If I understand the revised attack description correctly, then there is a small window in which the attacker can create a script less than 55 bytes in length, where nearly all of the first 32 bytes are selected by the attacker, yet nevertheless the script seems safe to the counter-party. The smallest such script I was able to construct was the following: CHECKSIGVERIFY HASH160 EQUAL This is 56 bytes and requires only 7 bits of grinding in the fake pubkey. But 56 bytes is too large. Switching to secp256k1 serialized 32-byte pubkeys (in a script version upgrade, for example) would reduce this to the necessary 55 bytes with 0 bits of grinding. A smaller variant is possible: DUP HASH160 EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIGVERIFY HASH160 = EQUAL This is 46 bytes, but requires grinding 96 bits, which is a bit less plausible. Belts and suspenders are not so terrible together, however, and I think there is enough of a justification here to look into modifying the scheme to use a different IV for hash tree updates. This would prevent even the above implausible attacks. > On Sep 7, 2017, at 11:55 AM, Russell O'Connor = wrote: >=20 >=20 >=20 > On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach > wrote: > I've been puzzling over your email since receiving it. I'm not sure it > is possible to perform the attack you describe with the tree structure > specified in the BIP. If I may rephrase your attack, I believe you are > seeking a solution to the following: >=20 > Want: An innocuous script and a malign script for which >=20 > double-SHA256(innocuous) >=20 > is equal to either >=20 > fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r) or > fast-SHA256(r || double-SHA256(malign)) >=20 > or fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r1) || r0) > or fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(r1 || double-SHA256(malign)) || r0) > or ... > =20 > where r is a freely chosen 32-byte nonce. This would allow the > attacker to reveal the innocuous script before funds are sent to the > MAST, then use the malign script to spend. >=20 > Because of the double-SHA256 construction I do not see how this can be > accomplished without a full break of SHA256.=20 >=20 > The particular scenario I'm imagining is a collision between >=20 > double-SHA256(innocuous) >=20 > and=20 >=20 > fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r2) = || r1) || r0). >=20 > where innocuous is a Bitcoin Script that is between 32 and 55 bytes = long. >=20 > Observe that when data is less than 55 bytes then double-SHA256(data) = =3D fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(padding-SHA256(data)) || 0x8000...100) = (which is really the crux of the matter). >=20 > Therefore, to get our collision it suffices to find a collision = between >=20 > padding-SHA256(innocuous) >=20 > and >=20 > fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r2) || r1 >=20 > r1 can freely be set to the second half of padding-SHA256(innocuous), = so it suffices to find a collision between >=20 > fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r2) >=20 > and the first half of padding-SHA256(innocuous) which is equal to the = first 32 bytes of innocuous. >=20 > Imagine the first opcode of innocuous is the push of a value that the = attacker claims to be his 33-byte public key. > So long as the attacker doesn't need to prove that they know the = discrete log of this pubkey, they can grind r2 until the result of = fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r2) contains the correct first = couple of bytes for the script header and the opcode for a 33-byte push. = I believe that is only about 3 or 4 bytes of they need to grind out. >=20 --Apple-Mail=_2F828574-A4BF-4E5C-8038-569FC539BB4C Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
TL;DR I'll be updating the = fast Merkle-tree spec to use a different
  =     IV, using (for infrastructure compatability reasons) the = scheme
      provided by Peter = Todd.

This is = a specific instance of a general problem where you cannot
trust scripts given to you by another party. Notice that we = run into
the same sort of problem when doing key = aggregation, in which you must
require the other = party to prove knowledge of the discrete log before
using their public key, or else key cancellation can = occur.

With = script it is a little bit more complicated as you might want
zero-knowledge proofs of hash pre-images for HTLCs as well as = proofs
of DL knowledge (signatures), but the basic = idea is the same. Multi-
party wallet level = protocols for jointly constructing scriptPubKeys
should require a 'delinearization' step that proves knowledge = of
information necessary to complete each part of = the script, as part of
proving the safety of a = construct.

I = think my hangup before in understanding the attack you describe = was
in actualizing it into a practical attack that = actually escalates the
attacker's capabilities. If = the attacker can get you to agree to a
MAST policy = that is nothing more than a CHECKSIG over a key they
presumably control, then they don't need to do any = complicated
grinding. The attacker in that scenario = would just actually specify a
key they control and = take the funds that way.

Where this presumably leads to an actual exploit is when you = specify a
script that a curious counter-party = actually takes the time to
investigate and believes = to be secure. For example, a script that
requires a = signature or pre-image revelation from that counter-party.
That would require grinding not a few bytes, but at minimum = 20-33
bytes for either a HASH160 image or the = counter-party's key.

If I understand the revised attack description correctly, = then there
is a small window in which the attacker = can create a script less than
55 bytes in length, = where nearly all of the first 32 bytes are
selected = by the attacker, yet nevertheless the script seems safe to
the counter-party. The smallest such script I was able to = construct
was the following:
    <fake-pubkey> = CHECKSIGVERIFY HASH160 <preimage> EQUAL

This is 56 bytes and requires only 7 = bits of grinding in the fake
pubkey. But 56 bytes = is too large. Switching to secp256k1 serialized
32-byte pubkeys (in a script version upgrade, for example) = would
reduce this to the necessary 55 bytes with 0 = bits of grinding. A
smaller variant is = possible:

 =   DUP HASH160 <fake-pubkey-hash> EQUALVERIFY CHECKSIGVERIFY = HASH160 <preimage> EQUAL

This is 46 bytes, but requires grinding = 96 bits, which is a bit less
plausible.

Belts and suspenders are = not so terrible together, however, and I
think = there is enough of a justification here to look into modifying
the scheme to use a different IV for hash tree updates. This = would
prevent even the above implausible = attacks.


On = Sep 7, 2017, at 11:55 AM, Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.io> wrote:



On Thu, Sep 7, 2017 at 1:42 PM, Mark Friedenbach = <mark@friedenbach.org> = wrote:
I've been puzzling over your = email since receiving it. I'm not sure it
is = possible to perform the attack you describe with the tree = structure
specified in the BIP. If I may rephrase = your attack, I believe you are
seeking a solution = to the following:

Want: An innocuous script and a malign script for = which

  =  double-SHA256(innocuous)

is equal to either

  =  fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r) = or
   fast-SHA256(r || = double-SHA256(malign))

or  = fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r1) || = r0)
or  fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(r1 || = double-SHA256(malign)) || r0)
or = ...
 
where r is a freely chosen = 32-byte nonce. This would allow the
attacker to = reveal the innocuous script before funds are sent to the
MAST, then use the malign script to spend.

Because of the = double-SHA256 construction I do not see how this can be
accomplished without a full break of SHA256.

The particular scenario I'm imagining = is a collision between

    double-SHA256(innocuous)

and

    = fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) = || r2) || r1) || r0).

where innocuous is a Bitcoin Script that is between 32 and 55 = bytes long.

Observe that when data is less than 55 bytes then = double-SHA256(data) =3D fast-SHA256(fast-SHA256(padding-SHA256(data)) || = 0x8000...100) (which is really the crux of the matter).

Therefore, to get our collision it suffices to find a = collision between

    padding-SHA256(innocuous)

and

    = fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r2) || r1

r1 can freely be set to = the second half of padding-SHA256(innocuous), so it suffices to find a = collision between

   fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) = || r2)

and the = first half of padding-SHA256(innocuous) which is equal to the first 32 = bytes of innocuous.

Imagine the first opcode of innocuous is the push of a value = that the attacker claims to be his 33-byte public key.
So long as the attacker doesn't need to prove that they know = the discrete log of this pubkey, they can grind r2 until the result of = fast-SHA256(double-SHA256(malign) || r2) contains the = correct first couple of bytes for the script header and the opcode for a = 33-byte push.  I believe that is only about 3 or 4 bytes of they = need to grind out.


= --Apple-Mail=_2F828574-A4BF-4E5C-8038-569FC539BB4C--