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 B1585B1B for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:44:16 +0000 (UTC) X-Greylist: whitelisted by SQLgrey-1.7.6 Received: from mail-ua0-f170.google.com (mail-ua0-f170.google.com [209.85.217.170]) by smtp1.linuxfoundation.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8DBDD127 for ; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 15:44:14 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-ua0-f170.google.com with SMTP id k23so143682uaf.4 for ; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 08:44:14 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=blockstream-io.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=ZhWPf13OMuxlFQ0T5h4M0j/bE+ZGhXuu9T3iL/hHKEk=; b=LBDc5kjwrNtZoCyQvwMkW7xVXfRsQHnuindNITP7yWKPkRL0k9X8YI+cTkHCf74lUq 7tQJcGuPIiyMGz8TbDNXUMW7Yu6XmPUAsnXKyKeJHNK/G6IVUdRpHNHONKoYpQ6LI7c4 Kk4oj5DIG7+IO8StKTE4E4G25JY436BCJOuhHTM4W8icvhoFruURXwZEmuAOvh23PZTd HeEIAcREXJZf655O1hyniZxZZKAONAN86KLHmseJWesb5TLjnrAi6TbxJrAYEl6u455O HbYGuhyspfYmKQrSDzPySORoivXcTY0l8Y9BFKhbkliLo1W22Iwd2HbUc9Oq6tjAQNFz Csmg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=ZhWPf13OMuxlFQ0T5h4M0j/bE+ZGhXuu9T3iL/hHKEk=; b=V+nsnyfcfIvaTCyqS8WZjhADUK6YEeKkL9VO/yTarzRB+MbjmMdmFntEHZqyprhWUQ sTE/isn7v54kM2hZiTNnnt2YG4kl0I4K9vUffL+P9n4y9xrcg6o1EjQua+6Xh/IcUcVp ro45qPSFGlVeYu+VwI38F6Lbkr6YxdopuOwcH+etOIac02F5bc/00li7OOevhdq/8U2e B3Z4Z3e83N3E9df/8h/V9XaxolJNzrdFEjRZN4v+7bnp1QixK6vRJEI4we+p3yZ6PD2h bhHYEWjcA2C0RYWDSqURjUjXgrGdzBiCX9bTEe1bNPmpAFf0fiqFjAmg09OjRCSNmPqv Oenw== X-Gm-Message-State: AHPjjUjQuy6BF4oKtPuPp6Lp9na3wLxhixjW+Dq9ehNVwhrdxjWmEnpI f5XBMeeRAnxhNvrgZZ7omPqTqFt1uZzH X-Google-Smtp-Source: ADKCNb6YlESXt9lf8PpSvrn1u7lvf3pzfhYcxT0qnjoNAqmNyc4kWRgT6YHyHKWsPBOORpE65VnYDUvG9PYDO3ETVBI= X-Received: by 10.159.50.7 with SMTP id x7mr1864990uad.50.1504799053508; Thu, 07 Sep 2017 08:44:13 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.176.90.142 with HTTP; Thu, 7 Sep 2017 08:43:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: From: "Russell O'Connor" Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2017 11:43:52 -0400 Message-ID: To: Mark Friedenbach Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a11455f0a0b5e6d05589b55c2" X-Spam-Status: No, score=0.5 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, HTML_MESSAGE,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE,RCVD_IN_SORBS_SPAM autolearn=disabled version=3.3.1 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.3.1 (2010-03-16) on smtp1.linux-foundation.org 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 15:44:16 -0000 --001a11455f0a0b5e6d05589b55c2 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" In that case, you may as well remove all references to leaves and double SHA-256 from your BIP since your design has no method for distinguishing between internal nodes and leaves. I think that if this design stands, it will play a role in some future CVEs. The BIP itself is too abstract about its data contents to specifically say that it has a vulnerability; however, I believe it is inviting vulnerabilities. For example, I might agree with a counterparty to a design of some sort of smart contract in the form of a MAST. My counterparty has shown me all the "leaves" of our MAST and I can verify its Merkle root computation. After being deployed, I found out that one of the leaves wasn't really a leaf but is instead a specially crafted "script" with a fake pubkey chosen by my couterparty so that this leaf can also be interpreted as a fake internal node (i.e. an internal node with a right branch of 0x8000...100). Because the Fast Merkle Tree design doesn't distinguish between leaves and internal nodes my counter party gets away with building an Inclusion Proof through this "leaf" to reveal the evil code that they had designed into the MAST at a deeper level. Turns out my counterparty was grinding their evil code to produce an internal node that can also be parsed as an innocent script. They used their "pubkey" to absorb excess random data from their grinding that they cannot eliminate. (The counterparty doesn't actually know the discrete log of this "pubkey", they just claimed it was their pubkey and I believed them). Having ambiguity about whether a node is a leaf or an internal node is a security risk. Furthermore, changing the design so that internal node and leaves are distinguishable still allows chained invocations. Arbitrary data can be stored in Fast Merkle Tree leaves, including the Merkle root of another Fast Merkle Tree. Applications that are limited to proof with paths no longer than 32 branches can still circumvent this limit by staging these Fast Merkle Trees in explicit layers (as opposed to the implicit layers with the current design). By storing a inner Fast Merkle Tree root inside the (explicit) leaf of an outer Fast Merkle Tree, the application can verify a Inclusion Proof of the inner Fast Merkle Tree Root in the outer Fast Merkle Tree Root, and then verify a second Inclusion Proof of the desired data in the inner Faster Merkle Tree Root. The application will need to tag their data to distinguish between inner Fast Merkle Tree Roots and other application data, but that is just part of the general expectation that applications not store ambiguous data inside the leaves of Fast Merkle Trees. On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Mark Friedenbach wrote: > This design purposefully does not distinguish leaf nodes from internal > nodes. That way it chained invocations can be used to validate paths longer > than 32 branches. Do you see a vulnerability due to this lack of > distinction? > > On Sep 6, 2017, at 6:59 PM, Russell O'Connor > wrote: > > The fast hash for internal nodes needs to use an IV that is not the > standard SHA-256 IV. Instead needs to use some other fixed value, which > should itself be the SHA-256 hash of some fixed string (e.g. the string > "BIP ???" or "Fash SHA-256"). > > As it stands, I believe someone can claim a leaf node as an internal node > by creating a proof that provides a phony right-hand branch claiming to > have hash 0x80000..0000100 (which is really the padding value for the > second half of a double SHA-256 hash). > > (I was schooled by Peter Todd by a similar issue in the past.) > > On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitcoin-dev < > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > >> Fast Merkle Trees >> BIP: https://gist.github.com/maaku/41b0054de0731321d23e9da90ba4ee0a >> Code: https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tree/fast-merkle-tree >> > --001a11455f0a0b5e6d05589b55c2 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
In that case, you may as well remove all references t= o leaves and double SHA-256 from your BIP since your design has no method f= or distinguishing between internal nodes and leaves.

I think that if this design stands, it will play a role in some future C= VEs.=C2=A0 The BIP itself is too abstract about its data contents to specif= ically say that it has a vulnerability; however, I believe it is inviting v= ulnerabilities.
For example, I might agree with a counterparty to= a design of some sort of smart contract in the form of a MAST.=C2=A0 My co= unterparty has shown me all the "leaves" of our MAST and I can ve= rify its Merkle root computation.
After being deployed, I found o= ut that one of the leaves wasn't really a leaf but is instead a special= ly crafted "script" with a fake pubkey chosen by my couterparty s= o that this leaf can also be interpreted as a fake internal node (i.e. an i= nternal node with a right branch of 0x8000...100).
Because the Fa= st Merkle Tree design doesn't distinguish between leaves and internal n= odes my counter party gets away with building an Inclusion Proof through th= is "leaf" to reveal the evil code that they had designed into the= MAST at a deeper level.

Turns out my counterparty= was grinding their evil code to produce an internal node that can also be = parsed as an innocent script.=C2=A0 They used their "pubkey" to a= bsorb excess random data from their grinding that they cannot eliminate.
(The counterparty doesn't actually know the discrete log of thi= s "pubkey", they just claimed it was their pubkey and I believed = them).


Having ambiguity about wheth= er a node is a leaf or an internal node is a security risk. Furthermore, ch= anging the design so that internal node and leaves are distinguishable stil= l allows chained invocations.
Arbitrary data can be stored in Fas= t Merkle Tree leaves, including the Merkle root of another Fast Merkle Tree= .
Applications that are limited to proof with paths no longer tha= n 32 branches can still circumvent this limit by staging these Fast Merkle = Trees in explicit layers (as opposed to the implicit layers with the curren= t design).

By storing a inner Fast Merkle Tree roo= t inside the (explicit) leaf of an outer Fast Merkle Tree, the application = can verify a Inclusion Proof of the inner Fast Merkle Tree Root in the oute= r Fast Merkle Tree Root, and then verify a second Inclusion Proof of the de= sired data in the inner Faster Merkle Tree Root.=C2=A0 The application will= need to tag their data to distinguish between inner Fast Merkle Tree Roots= and other application data, but that is just part of the general expectati= on that applications not store ambiguous data inside the leaves of Fast Mer= kle Trees.


On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 10:20 PM, Mark Friedenbach <= span dir=3D"ltr"><mark@friedenbach.org> wrote:
This design purposefully does not distinguish = leaf nodes from internal nodes. That way it chained invocations can be used= to validate paths longer than 32 branches. Do you see a vulnerability due = to this lack of distinction?

On Se= p 6, 2017, at 6:59 PM, Russell O'Connor <roconnor@blockstream.io> wrote:
The fa= st hash for internal nodes needs to use an IV that is not the standard SHA-= 256 IV. Instead needs to use some other fixed value, which should itself be= the SHA-256 hash of some fixed string (e.g. the string "BIP ???"= or "Fash SHA-256").

As it stands, I believe someone= can claim a leaf node as an internal node by creating a proof that provide= s a phony right-hand branch claiming to have hash 0x80000..0000100 (which i= s really the padding value for the second half of a double SHA-256 hash).
(I was schooled by Peter Todd by a similar issue in the past.)<= br>

On Wed, Sep 6, 2017 at 8:38 PM, Mark Friedenbach via bitco= in-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org= > wrote:
Fast Merkle Trees
BIP: https://gist.github.com/maaku/41b0054de0731321d23e9da90ba4ee0a
Code: https://github.com/maaku/bitcoin/tr= ee/fast-merkle-tree

--001a11455f0a0b5e6d05589b55c2--