From: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail.com>
To: Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE and OP_RETURN
Date: Sun, 24 May 2020 00:52:13 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <Ptq11JJF3B5h2X94dQdis8lFf7PSm_Hg9F2uITk4MhGcXULr3eiuF3GF71fEVZpcsNZ_s_nrRCXcUmxthQQq4vPQERQpUbCNYErVA9yuNNc=@protonmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAB3F3DtCgdWOPpTdr-cMcnRO1RE2isEAavGZSOTvtSi-0_x64w@mail.gmail.com>
Good morning Thomas,
> So I think the question to ask would be "why can't we just make sure it's not 64?"
If we accept a 60-byte tx, then SHA-256 will pad it to 64 bytes, and it may still be possible to mount CVE-2017-12842 attack with 32-bits of work.
Of course some other details will be changed from the standard SHA-256 in mounting this attack, but from my poor understanding it seems safer to just avoid the area around length 64.
It *might* be safe to accept 65-byte or larger (but do not believe me, I only play a cryptographer on the Internet), but that does not help your specific application, which uses 60 byte tx.
Regards,
ZmnSCPxj
>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:24 AM Greg Sanders <gsanders87@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > AFAIU the number was picked to protect against CVE-2017-12842 covertly. See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16885 which updated the text to explicitly mention this fact.
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:20 AM Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > I have been trying to CPFP a transaction using OP_RETURN, because the
> > > remaining output value would have been lower than the dust threshold.
> > >
> > > The scriptPubkey of the output was OP_RETURN + OP_0, and there was a
> > > single p2wsh input.
> > >
> > > The result is a 60 bytes transaction (without witness), that gets
> > > rejected because it is lower than MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE, which
> > > is equal to 82 bytes.
> > >
> > > Why is that value so high? Would it make sense to lower it to 60?
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-05-24 0:52 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-05-23 14:49 [bitcoin-dev] MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE and OP_RETURN Thomas Voegtlin
2020-05-23 15:24 ` Greg Sanders
2020-05-23 15:25 ` Greg Sanders
2020-05-24 0:52 ` ZmnSCPxj [this message]
2020-05-27 15:15 ` Russell O'Connor
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='Ptq11JJF3B5h2X94dQdis8lFf7PSm_Hg9F2uITk4MhGcXULr3eiuF3GF71fEVZpcsNZ_s_nrRCXcUmxthQQq4vPQERQpUbCNYErVA9yuNNc=@protonmail.com' \
--to=zmnscpxj@protonmail.com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=gsanders87@gmail.com \
/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