From: Jonas Schnelli <dev@jonasschnelli•ch>
To: Eric Voskuil <eric@voskuil•org>,
Bitcoin Protocol Discussion
<bitcoin-dev@lists•linuxfoundation.org>
Subject: Re: [bitcoin-dev] BIP151 protocol incompatibility
Date: Mon, 13 Feb 2017 12:14:01 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e153823d-e38e-b4b6-01d5-b9d981381e01@jonasschnelli.ch> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <638deacd-c117-f1a7-10de-a7e36a47c3c7@voskuil.org>
[-- Attachment #1.1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4579 bytes --]
>> Look at feefilter BIP 133
>> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0133.mediawiki#backward-compatibility)
>> or sendheaders BIP130
>> (https://github.com/bitcoin/bips/blob/master/bip-0130.mediawiki#backward-compatibility)
>> Isn't it the same there?
> No. This is what I was referring to. These messages are enabled by
> protocol version. If they are received by a node below the version at
> which they are activated, they are unknown messages, implying an invalid
> peer. The above messages cannot be sent until *after* the version is
> negotiated. BIP151 violates this rule by allowing the new control
> message to be sent *before* the version handshake.
This indeed is not ideal for compatibility checks, but increases security.
I could not find a protocol specification that said communication must
be terminated when messages are transmitted before the version handshake
has been done. I mostly looked into Bitcoin-Cores implementation (which
means also into BitcoinXT/UT, where this is allowed).
Also. BIP151 clearly says that the requesting peer needs to initiate the
encryption (encinit).
In case of light clients not supporting BIP151 connecting to peers
supporting BIP151, there should never be transmission of new message
types specified in BIP151.
>
>> Once BIP151 is implemented, it would make sense to bump the protocol
>> version, but this needs to be done once this has been
>> implemented/deployed.
> There are already nodes out there breaking connections based on the BIP.
It could very likely be possible that the initial responding peer tries
to initiate a encryption session which would mean that BIP151 was not
implemented correctly.
Correct me if I'm wrong please.
>
>> Or do I make a mistake somewhere?
> Yes, the ordering of the messages. New messages can only be added after
> the handshake negotiates the higher version. Otherwise the handshake is
> both irrelevant (as Pieter is implying) and broken (for all existing
> protocol versions).
I could not find evidence of the protocol specification that would
forbid (=terminate connection) such messages and I think allowing
unknown-messages before the version handshake makes the protocol flexible.
Are there any reasons we should drop peers if they send us unknown, but
correctly formatted p2p packages (magic, checksum, etc.) before the
version handshake, ... but not drop them if we have received unknown
messages after the version handshake?
I can't see that a such spec. would reduce the DOS attack vector?
>
>>> As for DOS, waste of bandwidth is not something to be ignored. If a peer
>>> is flooding a node with addr message the node can manage it because it
>>> understands the semantics of addr messages. If a node is required to
>>> allow any message that it cannot understand it has no recourse. It
>>> cannot determine whether it is under attack or if the behavior is
>>> correct and for proper continued operation must be ignored.
>> How do you threat any other not known message types?
> You may be more familiar with non-validating peers. If a message type is
> not known it is an invalid message and the peer is immediately dropped.
> We started seeing early drops in handshakes with bcoin nodes because of
> this issue.
If this had happened, it's very likely because the responding peer tried
to initiate a encryption session which is against BIP151 specs.
>
>> Any peer can send you any type of message anytime.
> Sure, a peer can do what it wants. It can send photos. But I'm not sure
> what makes you think it would be correct to maintain the connection when
> an *invalid* message is received.
Check:
https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/blob/a06ede9a138d0fb86b0de17c42b936d9fe6e2158/src/net_processing.cpp#L2595
I think it was a wise implementation decision to allow unknown (not
invalid) messages.
This had allowed us to deploy stuff like compact blocks, feefilter, etc.
without breaking backward compatibility.
IMO, without a such flexibility, the deployment complexity would be
irresponsible high without really solving the DOS problem.
>
>> Why would your implementation how you threat unknown messages be
> different for messages specified in BIP151?
>
> Because it properly validates the protocol.
For feefilter or compact block or sendheaders?
You can't link a (unimplemented) specification (improvement process) to
a protocol version before deployment. Or can you?
Once it has been widely deployed, we should set a protocol minversion
for BIP151, right.
</jonas>
[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 833 bytes --]
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2017-02-13 11:14 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 13+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2017-02-13 5:18 Eric Voskuil
2017-02-13 8:47 ` Pieter Wuille
2017-02-13 9:36 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-02-13 10:07 ` Jonas Schnelli
2017-02-13 10:30 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-02-13 11:14 ` Jonas Schnelli [this message]
2017-02-14 19:54 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-02-14 20:58 ` Jonas Schnelli
2017-02-13 10:16 ` Matt Corallo
2017-02-13 10:54 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-02-13 11:11 ` Matt Corallo
2017-02-13 11:17 ` Eric Voskuil
2017-02-13 13:04 ` Matt Corallo
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=e153823d-e38e-b4b6-01d5-b9d981381e01@jonasschnelli.ch \
--to=dev@jonasschnelli$(echo .)ch \
--cc=bitcoin-dev@lists$(echo .)linuxfoundation.org \
--cc=eric@voskuil$(echo .)org \
/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