From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com>
To: Wladimir <laanwj@gmail•com>
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists•sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] [softfork proposal] Strict DER signatures
Date: Tue, 3 Feb 2015 15:38:42 -0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAPg+sBiU14fsJ24Sf3apaLffnZuD3Y+pFdz8A7jH50Pg-fD+5w@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAPg+sBi8_wQj1ZGWUPQ4rRmuPKt3=OY6HcRZmVLqGMeLNwhpPQ@mail.gmail.com>
On Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 10:15 AM, Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail•com> wrote:
>>> The much simpler alternative is just adding this to BIP66's DERSIG
>>> right now, which is a one-line change that's obviously softforking. Is
>>> anyone opposed to doing so at this stage?
I'm retracting this proposed change.
Suhar Daftuas pointed out that there remain edge-cases which are not
covered (a 33-byte R or S whose first byte is not a zero). The intent
here is really making sure that signature validation and parsing can
be entirely separated, and that signature checking itself does not
need a third return value ("invalid encoding", in addition to "valid
signature" and "invalid signature"). If we don't want to make
assumptions about how that implementation works, the only guaranteed
way of doing that is requiring that R and S are in fact within the
range allowed by secp256k1, which would require an integer decoder
inside the signature encoding checker. I consider that to be
unreasonable.
In addition, a much cleaner solution that covers this as well has
already been proposed: only allow 0 (the empty byte vector) as invalid
signature. That would 100% align signature validity with decoding, and
is much simpler to implement.
--
Pieter
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-02-03 23:38 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 32+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-01-21 0:35 Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 4:45 ` Rusty Russell
2015-01-21 16:49 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 19:10 ` Peter Todd
2015-01-21 19:29 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 20:30 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 20:39 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 20:37 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-01-21 20:52 ` Douglas Roark
2015-01-21 21:22 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-21 20:27 ` Andrew Poelstra
2015-01-21 22:57 ` Dave Collins
2015-01-22 0:32 ` Rusty Russell
2015-01-22 3:12 ` David Vorick
2015-01-22 4:18 ` Matt Whitlock
2015-01-22 4:20 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-25 14:34 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-25 14:48 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-03 0:44 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-02-03 2:21 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-02-03 12:00 ` Wladimir
2015-02-03 14:30 ` Alex Morcos
2015-02-03 18:15 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-02-03 18:19 ` Gavin Andresen
2015-02-03 19:22 ` Jeff Garzik
2015-02-03 23:38 ` Pieter Wuille [this message]
2015-01-22 22:41 ` Zooko Wilcox-OHearn
2015-01-25 16:57 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-26 5:14 ` Pieter Wuille
2015-01-26 18:35 ` Gregory Maxwell
2015-01-28 6:24 ` Wladimir
2015-02-06 21:38 ` Pieter Wuille
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=CAPg+sBiU14fsJ24Sf3apaLffnZuD3Y+pFdz8A7jH50Pg-fD+5w@mail.gmail.com \
--to=pieter.wuille@gmail$(echo .)com \
--cc=bitcoin-development@lists$(echo .)sourceforge.net \
--cc=laanwj@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