From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 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 ) 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 ; Sun, 25 Dec 2011 22:09:18 +0100 (CET) References: User-Agent: K-9 Mail for Android In-Reply-To: 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 Message-ID: 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: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-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 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