📅 Original date posted:2015-01-22 📝 Original message:.Hi there. Thank you for ...

Zooko Wilcox-OHearn [ARCHIVE] /

npub1z4n…84vc

2023-06-07 15:28:57

in reply to nevent1q…40tm

📅 Original date posted:2015-01-22
📝 Original message:.Hi there. Thank you for your work on this.

I've looked over https://gist.github.com/sipa/5d12c343746dad376c80 and
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/bipstrictder . I didn't
actually audit the included reference implementation of
IsValidSignatureEncoding(), and I didn't check whether the test
vectors in https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/f94e806f8bfa007a3de4b45fa3c9860f2747e427
exercise all of the branches that are changed by this patch.

I have the following comments:

* It seems like a good idea to do this.

* I don't see any problem with using the upgrade mechanism from BIP 34
for this. It's cool! I'm happy that such a mechanism seems to work in
practice.

* Should the bipstrictder give a rationale or link to why accept the
0-length sig as correctly-encoded-but-invalid? I guess the rationale
is an efficiency issue as described in the log entry for
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/041f1e3597812c250ebedbd8f4ef1565591d2c34
.

* Does this mean there are still multiple ways to encode a correctly
encoded but invalid signature, one of which is the 0-length string?
Would it make sense for this change to also treat any *other*
correctly-encoded-but-invalid sig (besides the 0-length string) as
incorrectly-encoded? Did I just step in some BIP62?

* It would be good to verify that all the branches of the new
IsDERSignature() from
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/0c427135151a6bed657438ffb2e670be84eb3642
are tested by the test vectors in
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/f94e806f8bfa007a3de4b45fa3c9860f2747e427
. Eyeballing it, there are about 20 branches touched by the patch, and
about 24 new test vectors.

* It would be good to finish the TODOs in
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/b7986119a5d41337fea1e83804ed6223438158ec
so that it was actually testing the upgrade behavior.

* missing comment:
https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/e186f6a80161f9fa45fbced82ab1d22f081b942c#commitcomment-9406643

Okay, that's all I've got. Hope it helps! Thanks again for your good work!

Regards,

Zooko

Author Public Key

npub1z4nwmaam6z2a4mszqjl2fh0g402xfsnsehcctnxrr62mqa9agc9sv684vc

Show more details

Published at

2023-06-07 15:28:57

Kind type

1 Short Text Note

Event JSON

{ "id": "37cca860ec824807fbc3c4332c3298a7c15b9ad74874c5353c218ccca8d0ff2f", "pubkey": "1566edf7bbd095daee0204bea4dde8abd464c270cdf185ccc31e95b074bd460b", "created_at": 1686151737, "kind": 1, "tags": [ [ "e", "43498997aaf69cc28c108f60f2a0a9a1eeab544cf4e7f9ece35a133ac15cb4c1", "", "root" ], [ "e", "df194c666af3514e79ab8cc59090fbbc2804883f4c257928f37418d246c526b4", "", "reply" ], [ "p", "4aa6cf9aa5c8e98f401dac603c6a10207509b6a07317676e9d6615f3d7103d73" ] ], "content": "📅 Original date posted:2015-01-22\n📝 Original message:.Hi there. Thank you for your work on this.\n\nI've looked over https://gist.github.com/sipa/5d12c343746dad376c80 and\nhttps://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/bipstrictder . I didn't\nactually audit the included reference implementation of\nIsValidSignatureEncoding(), and I didn't check whether the test\nvectors in https://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/f94e806f8bfa007a3de4b45fa3c9860f2747e427\nexercise all of the branches that are changed by this patch.\n\nI have the following comments:\n\n* It seems like a good idea to do this.\n\n* I don't see any problem with using the upgrade mechanism from BIP 34\nfor this. It's cool! I'm happy that such a mechanism seems to work in\npractice.\n\n* Should the bipstrictder give a rationale or link to why accept the\n0-length sig as correctly-encoded-but-invalid? I guess the rationale\nis an efficiency issue as described in the log entry for\nhttps://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/041f1e3597812c250ebedbd8f4ef1565591d2c34\n.\n\n* Does this mean there are still multiple ways to encode a correctly\nencoded but invalid signature, one of which is the 0-length string?\nWould it make sense for this change to also treat any *other*\ncorrectly-encoded-but-invalid sig (besides the 0-length string) as\nincorrectly-encoded? Did I just step in some BIP62?\n\n* It would be good to verify that all the branches of the new\nIsDERSignature() from\nhttps://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/0c427135151a6bed657438ffb2e670be84eb3642\nare tested by the test vectors in\nhttps://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/f94e806f8bfa007a3de4b45fa3c9860f2747e427\n. Eyeballing it, there are about 20 branches touched by the patch, and\nabout 24 new test vectors.\n\n* It would be good to finish the TODOs in\nhttps://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/b7986119a5d41337fea1e83804ed6223438158ec\nso that it was actually testing the upgrade behavior.\n\n* missing comment:\nhttps://github.com/sipa/bitcoin/commit/e186f6a80161f9fa45fbced82ab1d22f081b942c#commitcomment-9406643\n\nOkay, that's all I've got. Hope it helps! Thanks again for your good work!\n\nRegards,\n\nZooko", "sig": "3da7dbfab11c33235681a852a5c353ecd847198fe9506b70f0c64fb362f3bc70631acc2b9886eac37c5ae14a528796e80db8de0e5129fc25b987a8e9a2a3fa61" }