From: Antoine Riard <antoine.riard@gmail•com>
To: ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>,
security@ariard•me,
"lightning-dev\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\@lists.linuxfoundation.org"
<lightning-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Full Disclosure: CVE-2023-40231 / CVE-2023-40232 / CVE-2023-40233 / CVE-2023-40234 "All your mempool are belong to us"
Date: Tue, 17 Oct 2023 19:34:52 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALZpt+Gu9JJUeJfdUm_eT66DEH=UY+z1vkD_jUNZZyTPaet_QA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <64VpLnXQLbeoc895Z9aR7C1CfH6IFxPFDrk0om-md1eqvdMczLSnhwH29T6EWCXgiGQiRqQnAYsezbvNvoPCdcfvCvp__Y8BA1ow5UwY2yQ=@protonmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 6544 bytes --]
Hi Zeeman,
> At block height 100, `B` notices the `B->C` HTLC timelock is expired
without `C` having claimed it, so `B` forces the `B====C` channel onchain.
> However, onchain feerates have risen and the commitment transaction and
HTLC-timeout transaction do not confirm.
This is not that the HTLC-timeout does not confirm. It is replaced in
cycles by C's HTLC-preimage which is still valid after `B->C` HTLC timelock
has expired. And this HTLC-preimage is subsequently replaced itself.
See the test here:
https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin/commit/19d61fa8cf22a5050b51c4005603f43d72f1efcf
> At block height 144, `B` is still not able to claim the `A->B` HTLC, so
`A` drops the `A====B` channel onchain.
> As the fees are up-to-date, this confirms immediately and `A` is able to
recover the HTLC funds.
> However, the feerates of the `B====C` pre-signed transactions remain at
the old, uncompetitive feerates.
This is correct that A tries to recover the HTLC funds on the `A===B`
channel.
However, there is no need to consider the fee rates nor mempool congestion
as the exploit lays on the replacement mechanism itself (in simple
scenario).
> At this point, `C` broadcasts an HTLC-success transaction with high
feerates that CPFPs the commitment tx.
> However, it replaces the HTLC-timeout transaction, which is at the old,
low feerate.
> `C` is thus able to get the value of the HTLC, but `B` is now no longer
able to use the knowledge of the preimage, as its own incoming HTLC was
already confirmed as claimed by `A`.
This is correct that `C` broadcasts an HTLC-success transaction at block
height 144.
However `C` broadcasts this high feerate transaction at _every block_
between blocks 100 and 144 to replace B's HTLC-timeout transaction.
> Let me also explain to non-Lightning experts why HTLC-timeout is
presigned in this case and why `B` cannot feebump it.
Note `B` can feebump the HTLC-timeout for anchor output channels thanks to
sighash_single | anyonecanpay on C's signature.
Le mar. 17 oct. 2023 à 11:34, ZmnSCPxj <ZmnSCPxj@protonmail•com> a écrit :
> Good morning Antoine et al.,
>
> Let me try to rephrase the core of the attack.
>
> There exists these nodes on the LN (letters `A`, `B`, and `C` are nodes,
> `==` are channels):
>
> A ===== B ===== C
>
> `A` routes `A->B->C`.
>
> The timelocks, for example, could be:
>
> A->B timeelock = 144
> B->C timelock = 100
>
> The above satisfies the LN BOLT requirements, as long as `B` has a
> `cltv_expiry_delta` of 44 or lower.
>
> After `B` forwards the HTLC `B->C`, C suddenly goes offline, and all the
> signed transactions --- commitment transaction and HTLC-timeout
> transactions --- are "stuck" at the feerate at the time.
>
> At block height 100, `B` notices the `B->C` HTLC timelock is expired
> without `C` having claimed it, so `B` forces the `B====C` channel onchain.
> However, onchain feerates have risen and the commitment transaction and
> HTLC-timeout transaction do not confirm.
>
> In the mean time, `A` is still online with `B` and updates the onchain
> fees of the `A====B` channel pre-signed transactions (commitment tx and
> HTLC-timeout tx) to the latest.
>
> At block height 144, `B` is still not able to claim the `A->B` HTLC, so
> `A` drops the `A====B` channel onchain.
> As the fees are up-to-date, this confirms immediately and `A` is able to
> recover the HTLC funds.
> However, the feerates of the `B====C` pre-signed transactions remain at
> the old, uncompetitive feerates.
>
> At this point, `C` broadcasts an HTLC-success transaction with high
> feerates that CPFPs the commitment tx.
> However, it replaces the HTLC-timeout transaction, which is at the old,
> low feerate.
> `C` is thus able to get the value of the HTLC, but `B` is now no longer
> able to use the knowledge of the preimage, as its own incoming HTLC was
> already confirmed as claimed by `A`.
>
> Is the above restatement accurate?
>
> ----
>
> Let me also explain to non-Lightning experts why HTLC-timeout is presigned
> in this case and why `B` cannot feebump it.
>
> In the Poon-Dryja mechanism, the HTLCs are "infected" by the Poon-Dryja
> penalty case, and are not plain HTLCs.
>
> A plain HTLC offerred by `B` to `C` would look like this:
>
> (B && OP_CLTV) || (C && OP_HASH160)
>
> However, on the commitment transaction held by `B`, it would be infected
> by the penalty case in this way:
>
> (B && C && OP_CLTV) || (C && OP_HASH160) || (C && revocation)
>
> There are two changes:
>
> * The addition of a revocation branch `C && revocation`.
> * The branch claimable by `B` in the "plain" HTLC (`B && OP_CLTV`) also
> includes `C`.
>
> These are necessary in case `B` tries to cheat and this HTLC is on an old,
> revoked transaction.
> If the revoked transaction is *really* old, the `OP_CLTV` would already
> impose a timelock far in the past.
> This means that a plain `B && OP_CLTV` branch can be claimed by `B` if it
> retained this very old revoked transaction.
>
> To prevent that, `C` is added to the `B && OP_CLTV` branch.
> We also introduce an HTLC-timeout transaction, which spends the `B && C &&
> OP_CLTV` branch, and outputs to:
>
> (B && OP_CSV) || (C && revocation)
>
> Thus, even if `B` held onto a very old revoked commitment transaction and
> attempts to spend the timelock branch (because the `OP_CLTV` is for an old
> blockheight), it still has to contend with a new output with a *relative*
> timelock.
>
> Unfortunately, this means that the HTLC-timeout transaction is pre-signed,
> and has a specific feerate.
> In order to change the feerate, both `B` and `C` have to agree to re-sign
> the HTLC-timeout transaction at the higher feerate.
>
> However, the HTLC-success transaction in this case spends the plain `(C &&
> OP_HASH160)` branch, which only involves `C`.
> This allows `C` to feebump the HTLC-success transaction arbitrarily even
> if `B` does not cooperate.
>
> While anchor outputs can be added to the HTLC-timeout transaction as well,
> `C` has a greater advantage here due to being able to RBF the HTLC-timeout
> out of the way (1 transaction), while `B` has to get both HTLC-timeout and
> a CPFP-RBF of the anchor output of the HTLC-timeout transaction (2
> transactions).
> `C` thus requires a smaller fee to achieve a particular feerate due to
> having to push a smaller number of bytes compared to `B`.
>
> Regards,
> ZmnSCPxj
>
[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 7508 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-10-17 18:35 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 59+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-10-16 16:57 [bitcoin-dev] " Antoine Riard
2023-10-16 19:13 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-16 22:10 ` Matt Morehouse
2023-10-17 1:11 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-20 10:47 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-20 11:18 ` Jochen Hoenicke
2023-10-16 22:51 ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2023-10-17 7:21 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " ziggie1984
2023-10-17 10:34 ` ZmnSCPxj
2023-10-17 18:34 ` Antoine Riard [this message]
2023-10-20 10:31 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-20 11:03 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-20 18:35 ` Matt Morehouse
2023-10-20 21:05 ` Matt Corallo
2023-10-21 0:15 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-21 1:03 ` Matt Corallo
2023-10-21 1:25 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-21 1:55 ` Matt Corallo
2023-10-21 2:43 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-23 16:09 ` Matt Corallo
2023-10-17 17:47 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-17 18:47 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-18 0:17 ` Matt Corallo
2023-10-18 2:57 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-19 8:12 ` Bastien TEINTURIER
2023-10-19 16:23 ` Matt Morehouse
2023-10-19 17:22 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-19 17:53 ` Matt Morehouse
2023-10-19 19:33 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-21 0:18 ` Olaoluwa Osuntokun
2023-11-17 22:36 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-19 18:02 ` Matt Corallo
2023-10-20 6:56 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Antoine Riard
2023-10-21 20:05 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-27 0:43 ` Peter Todd
2023-11-02 4:46 ` Antoine Riard
2023-10-21 0:09 ` [bitcoin-dev] OP_Expire and Coinbase-Like Behavior: Making HTLCs Safer by Letting Transactions Expire Safely Peter Todd
2023-10-21 8:58 ` David A. Harding
2023-10-21 10:31 ` Peter Todd
2023-10-22 8:30 ` vjudeu
2023-10-23 11:10 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " ZmnSCPxj
2023-10-23 15:45 ` Peter Todd
2023-11-02 5:24 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Antoine Riard
2023-11-02 6:26 ` Peter Todd
2023-11-02 17:07 ` Matt Morehouse
2023-11-03 5:27 ` Antoine Riard
2023-11-03 5:25 ` Antoine Riard
2023-11-04 7:26 ` Peter Todd
2023-11-06 18:45 ` Antoine Riard
2023-11-07 11:11 ` [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " ZmnSCPxj
2023-11-07 15:44 ` Antoine Riard
2023-11-08 0:51 ` [bitcoin-dev] " Peter Todd
2023-11-08 2:06 ` Peter Todd
2023-11-13 2:18 ` Antoine Riard
2023-11-14 19:50 ` Peter Todd
[not found] ` <CALZpt+H38cU9L8kq0mSYCDirzL39fxhdoz4pAPiS8dGJP8akKg@mail.gmail.com>
2023-11-15 17:53 ` [bitcoin-dev] Fwd: " Antoine Riard
2023-10-22 4:49 ` [bitcoin-dev] Full Disclosure: CVE-2023-40231 / CVE-2023-40232 / CVE-2023-40233 / CVE-2023-40234 "All your mempool are belong to us" Nadav Ivgi
2023-10-23 8:49 ` David A. Harding
2023-10-21 14:21 [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] " Nagaev Boris
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='CALZpt+Gu9JJUeJfdUm_eT66DEH=UY+z1vkD_jUNZZyTPaet_QA@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=antoine.riard@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=ZmnSCPxj@protonmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=lightning-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=security@ariard$(echo .)me \
/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