Good morning Thomas,

> So I think the question to ask would be "why can't we just make sure it's not 
> 64?"

If we accept a 60-byte tx, then SHA-256 will pad it to 64 bytes, and it may 
still be possible to mount CVE-2017-12842 attack with 32-bits of work.
Of course some other details will be changed from the standard SHA-256 in 
mounting this attack, but from my poor understanding it seems safer to just 
avoid the area around length 64.

It *might* be safe to accept 65-byte or larger (but do not believe me, I only 
play a cryptographer on the Internet), but that does not help your specific 
application, which uses 60 byte tx.

Regards,
ZmnSCPxj

>
> On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:24 AM Greg Sanders <gsander...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > AFAIU the number was picked to protect against CVE-2017-12842 covertly. 
> > See: https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/16885 which updated the text 
> > to explicitly mention this fact.
> >
> > On Sat, May 23, 2020 at 11:20 AM Thomas Voegtlin via bitcoin-dev 
> > <bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> >
> > > Hello list,
> > >
> > > I have been trying to CPFP a transaction using OP_RETURN, because the
> > > remaining output value would have been lower than the dust threshold.
> > >
> > > The scriptPubkey of the output was OP_RETURN + OP_0, and there was a
> > > single p2wsh input.
> > >
> > > The result is a 60 bytes transaction (without witness), that gets
> > > rejected because it is lower than MIN_STANDARD_TX_NONWITNESS_SIZE, which
> > > is equal to 82 bytes.
> > >
> > > Why is that value so high? Would it make sense to lower it to 60?
> > >
> > > Thomas
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > bitcoin-dev mailing list
> > > bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> > > https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
_______________________________________________
bitcoin-dev mailing list
bitcoin-dev@lists.linuxfoundation.org
https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev

Reply via email to