From: Peter Todd <pete@petertodd•org>
To: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Malleable booleans
Date: Tue, 14 Oct 2014 04:09:05 -0400 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20141014080905.GA10545@savin.petertodd.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBjbeAaTmEvqrHHU4Mb45VPyRvFxdRzz1S6+-t7ep20ZtQ@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2252 bytes --]
On Mon, Oct 13, 2014 at 07:34:16PM -0700, Pieter Wuille wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> while working on a BIP62 implementation I discovered yet another type
> of malleability: the interpretation of booleans.
>
> Any byte array with non-zero bytes in it (ignoring the highest bit of
> the last byte, which is the sign bit when interpreting as a number) is
> interpreted as true, anything else as false. Other than numbers,
> they're not even restricted to 4 bytes. Worse, the code for dealing
> with booleans is not very consistent: OP_BOOLAND and OP_BOOLOR first
> interpret their arguments as numbers, and then compare them to 0 to
> turn them into boolean values.
>
> This means that scripts that use booleans as inputs will be inherently
> malleable. Given that that seems actually useful (passing in booleans
> to guide some OP_IF's during execution of several alternatives), I
> would like to change BIP62 to also state that interpreted booleans
> must be of minimal encoded size (in addition to numbers).
>
> Any opinions for or against?
I noticed this awhile back myself. More interestingly, I remember
noticing some non-std scripts on mainnet that had opcodes that appeared
to be attempts to solve this issue with variations of the following:
DUP
IF
1 EQUALVERIFY
<do stuff>
ELSE
0 EQUALVERIFY
<do stuff>
ENDIF
I'll have to admit, I decided to keep quiet about it because it's a good
example of how relying on BIP62 for specialty contract applications that
absolutely need to avoid malleability for security reasons is a dubious
idea; it's hard to be sure that we've really gotten every relevant case
correct.
I think a decent argument *for* doing this is that if a script author
fails to properly 'bool-ize' every boolean-using path that can have
non-minimal encodings in normal execution, you can always create a
nVersion=1 transaction manually to spend the output, preventing funds
from getting lost. Meanwhile in the general case of a compenent script
author having the canonical bool testing in every boolean-using opcode
saves a lot of bytes.
--
'peter'[:-1]@petertodd.org
0000000000000000147fe2005d7d4490938a7ab96901b8256dcd9d4eac78cb8c
[-- Attachment #2: Digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 650 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2014-10-14 8:09 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2014-10-14 2:34 Pieter Wuille
2014-10-14 2:45 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-10-14 7:27 ` Thomas Zander
2014-10-14 7:52 ` Gregory Maxwell
2014-10-14 8:04 ` Wladimir
2014-10-14 8:09 ` Peter Todd [this message]
2014-10-14 18:54 ` Pieter Wuille
2014-10-14 19:45 ` 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=20141014080905.GA10545@savin.petertodd.org \
--to=pete@petertodd$(echo .)org \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
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