From: Sergio Demian Lerner <sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com>
To: bram@chia.net, bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] Trusted merkle tree depth for safe tx inclusion proofs without a soft fork
Date: Sat, 9 Jun 2018 13:03:53 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAKzdR-paqYgOxToikaVD=0GMsCjHBaynX3WgB-CN6Sn7B7kRXw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHUJnBCj8wnjP1=jobfpg7jkfjkX9iSBLeeAOyQCpobh6-AhUA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3177 bytes --]
Hi Peter,
We reported this as CVE-2017-12842, although it may have been known by
developers before us.
There are hundreds of SPV wallets out there, without even considering other
more sensitive systems relying on SPV proofs.
As I said we, at RSK, discovered this problem in 2017. For RSK it's very
important this is fixed because our SPV bridge uses SPV proofs.
I urge all people participating in this mailing list and the rest of the
Bitcoin community to work on this issue for the security and clean-design
of Bitcoin.
My suggestion is to use in the version bits 4 bits indicating the tree
depth (-1), as a soft-fork, so
00=1 depth,
0F = 16 depth (maximum 64K transactions). Very clean.
The other option is to ban transaction with size lower or equal to 64.
Best regards,
Sergio.
On Sat, Jun 9, 2018 at 5:31 AM Bram Cohen via bitcoin-dev <
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> So are you saying that if fully validating nodes wish to prune they can
> maintain the ability to validate old transactions by cacheing the number of
> transactions in each previous block?
>
> On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 3:20 PM, Peter Todd <pete@petertodd.org> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Jun 07, 2018 at 02:15:35PM -0700, Bram Cohen wrote:
>> > Are you proposing a soft fork to include the number of transactions in a
>> > block in the block headers to compensate for the broken Merkle format?
>> That
>> > sounds like a good idea.
>> >
>> > On Thu, Jun 7, 2018 at 10:13 AM, Peter Todd via bitcoin-dev <
>> > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
>> >
>> > > It's well known that the Bitcoin merkle tree algorithm fails to
>> distinguish
>> > > between inner nodes and 64 byte transactions, as both txs and inner
>> nodes
>> > > are
>> > > hashed the same way. This potentially poses a problem for tx inclusion
>> > > proofs,
>> > > as a miner could (with ~60 bits of brute forcing) create a
>> transaction that
>> > > committed to a transaction that was not in fact in the blockchain.
>> > >
>> > > Since odd-numbered inner/leaf nodes are concatenated with themselves
>> and
>> > > hashed
>> > > twice, the depth of all leaves (txs) in the tree is fixed.
>> > >
>> > > It occured to me that if the depth of the merkle tree is known, this
>> > > vulnerability can be trivially avoided by simply comparing the length
>> of
>> > > the
>> > > merkle path to that known depth. For pruned nodes, if the depth is
>> saved
>> > > prior
>> > > to pruning the block contents itself, this would allow for completely
>> safe
>> > > verification of tx inclusion proofs, without a soft-fork; storing this
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> Re-read my post: I specifically said you do not need a soft-fork to
>> implement
>> this. In fact, I think you can argue that this is an accidental feature,
>> not a
>> bug, as it further encourages the use of safe full verifiaction rather
>> than
>> unsafe lite clients.
>>
>> --
>> https://petertodd.org 'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 4744 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2018-06-09 11:04 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 11+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2018-06-07 17:13 [bitcoin-dev] Trusted merkle tree depth for safe tx inclusion proofs without a soft fork Peter Todd
2018-06-07 21:15 ` Bram Cohen
2018-06-07 22:20 ` Peter Todd
2018-06-09 3:29 ` Bram Cohen
2018-06-09 11:03 ` Sergio Demian Lerner [this message]
2018-06-09 12:21 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2018-06-09 12:24 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2018-06-09 12:45 ` Peter Todd
2018-06-09 12:51 ` Sergio Demian Lerner
2018-06-09 13:02 ` Peter Todd
2018-06-09 12:50 ` Peter Todd
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to='CAKzdR-paqYgOxToikaVD=0GMsCjHBaynX3WgB-CN6Sn7B7kRXw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=sergio.d.lerner@gmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=bram@chia.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox