bitcoin-list at bluematt.me [ARCHIVE] on Nostr: 📅 Original date posted:2011-12-25 🗒️ Summary of this message: A remote ...
📅 Original date posted:2011-12-25
🗒️ Summary of this message: A remote vulnerability was reported and fixed in the master bitcoin/bitcoin tree affecting those who pulled and compiled their own code in the last 5 days.
📝 Original message:Couldn't your net testing code be modified to do that to some extent?
Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>Reposted from the forums:
>
>makomk reported a remote vulnerability that I pulled into the master
>bitcoin/bitcoin tree on December 20. If you are running git-HEAD code
>on the production network you should pull the latest code to get the
>bug fixed.
>
>This affects only anybody who has pulled and compiled their own
>bitcoind/bitcoin-qt from the source tree in the last 5 days.
>
>Gory details:
>
>I made a mistake. I refactored the ConnectInputs() function into two
>pieces (FetchInputs() and ConnectInputs()), and should have duplicated
>a check in ConnectInputs for an out-of-range
>previous-transaction-output in the FetchInputs() method. The result
>was a new method I wrote to help prevent a possible OP_EVAL-related
>denial-of-service attack (AreInputsStandard()) could crash with an
>out-of-bounds memory access if given an invalid transaction.
>
>The bug-fix puts a check in FetchInputs and an assertion in
>AreInputsStandard. This does not affect the back-ported "mining only"
>code I wrote that some miners and pools have started using.
>
>The good news is this was found and reported before binaries with the
>vulnerability were released; the bad news is this was not found before
>the code was pulled and could have made it into the next release if
>makomk had not been testing some unrelated code.
>
>Before releasing 0.6, I would like to have an "intelligent,
>bitcoin-specific fuzzing tool" that automatically finds this type of
>bug that we can run before every release. If anybody already has one,
>please speak up!
>
>--
>--
>Gavin Andresen
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Write once. Port to many.
>Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development.
>Create
>new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
>Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity.
>appdeveloper.intel.com/join
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development
🗒️ Summary of this message: A remote vulnerability was reported and fixed in the master bitcoin/bitcoin tree affecting those who pulled and compiled their own code in the last 5 days.
📝 Original message:Couldn't your net testing code be modified to do that to some extent?
Gavin Andresen <gavinandresen at gmail.com> wrote:
>Reposted from the forums:
>
>makomk reported a remote vulnerability that I pulled into the master
>bitcoin/bitcoin tree on December 20. If you are running git-HEAD code
>on the production network you should pull the latest code to get the
>bug fixed.
>
>This affects only anybody who has pulled and compiled their own
>bitcoind/bitcoin-qt from the source tree in the last 5 days.
>
>Gory details:
>
>I made a mistake. I refactored the ConnectInputs() function into two
>pieces (FetchInputs() and ConnectInputs()), and should have duplicated
>a check in ConnectInputs for an out-of-range
>previous-transaction-output in the FetchInputs() method. The result
>was a new method I wrote to help prevent a possible OP_EVAL-related
>denial-of-service attack (AreInputsStandard()) could crash with an
>out-of-bounds memory access if given an invalid transaction.
>
>The bug-fix puts a check in FetchInputs and an assertion in
>AreInputsStandard. This does not affect the back-ported "mining only"
>code I wrote that some miners and pools have started using.
>
>The good news is this was found and reported before binaries with the
>vulnerability were released; the bad news is this was not found before
>the code was pulled and could have made it into the next release if
>makomk had not been testing some unrelated code.
>
>Before releasing 0.6, I would like to have an "intelligent,
>bitcoin-specific fuzzing tool" that automatically finds this type of
>bug that we can run before every release. If anybody already has one,
>please speak up!
>
>--
>--
>Gavin Andresen
>
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Write once. Port to many.
>Get the SDK and tools to simplify cross-platform app development.
>Create
>new or port existing apps to sell to consumers worldwide. Explore the
>Intel AppUpSM program developer opportunity.
>appdeveloper.intel.com/join
>http://p.sf.net/sfu/intel-appdev
>_______________________________________________
>Bitcoin-development mailing list
>Bitcoin-development at lists.sourceforge.net
>https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/bitcoin-development