Re: [bitcoin-dev] [Lightning-dev] Full Disclosure: CVE-2023-40231 / CVE-2023-40232 / CVE-2023-40233 / CVE-2023-40234 "All your mempool are belong to us"

[Undescribed Horrific Abuse, One Victim & Survivor of Many]

On 10/17/23, Matt Corallo via bitcoin-dev
<bitcoin-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org> wrote:
> There appears to be some confusion about this issue and the mitigations. To
> be clear, the deployed
> mitigations are not expected to fix this issue, its arguable if they provide
> anything more than a PR
> statement.
>
> There are two discussed mitigations here - mempool scanning and transaction
> re-signing/re-broadcasting.
>
> Mempool scanning relies on regularly checking the mempool of a local node to
> see if we can catch the
> replacement cycle mid-cycle. It only works if wee see the first transaction
> before the second
> transaction replaces it.
>
> Today, a large majority of lightning nodes run on machines with a Bitcoin
> node on the same IP
> address, making it very clear what the "local node" of the lightning node
> is. An attacker can
> trivially use this information to connect to said local node and do the
> replacement quickly,
> preventing the victim from seeing the replacement.
>
> More generally, however, similar discoverability is true for mining pools.
> An attacker performing
> this attack is likely to do the replacement attack on a miner's node
> directly, potentially reducing
> the reach of the intermediate transaction to only miners, such that the
> victim can never discover it
> at all.
>
> The second mitigation is similarly pathetic. Re-signing and re-broadcasting
> the victim's transaction
> in an attempt to get it to miners even if its been removed may work, if the
> attacker is super lazy
> and didn't finish writing their attack system. If the attacker is connected
> to a large majority of
> hashrate (which has historically been fairly doable), they can simply do
> their replacement in a
> cycle aggressively and arbitrarily reduce the probability that the victim's
> transaction gets confirmed.
>
> Now, the above is all true in a spherical cow kinda world, and the P2P
> network has plenty of slow
> nodes and strange behavior. Its possible that these mitigations might, by
> some stroke of luck,
> happen to catch such an attack and prevent it, because something took longer
> than the attacker
> intended or whatever. But, that's a far cry from any kind of material "fix"
> for the issue.
>
> Ultimately the only fix for this issue will be when miners keep a history of
> transactions they've
> seen and try them again after they may be able to enter the mempool because
> of an attack like this.
>
> Matt
>
> On 10/16/23 12:57 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:
>> (cross-posting mempool issues identified are exposing lightning chan to
>> loss of funds risks, other
>> multi-party bitcoin apps might be affected)
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>> End of last year (December 2022), amid technical discussions on eltoo
>> payment channels and
>> incentives compatibility of the mempool anti-DoS rules, a new
>> transaction-relay jamming attack
>> affecting lightning channels was discovered.
>>
>> After careful analysis, it turns out this attack is practical and
>> immediately exposed lightning
>> routing hops carrying HTLC traffic to loss of funds security risks, both
>> legacy and anchor output
>> channels. A potential exploitation plausibly happening even without
>> network mempools congestion.
>>
>> Mitigations have been designed, implemented and deployed by all major
>> lightning implementations
>> during the last months.
>>
>> Please find attached the release numbers, where the mitigations should be
>> present:
>> - LDK: v0.0.118 - CVE-2023 -40231
>> - Eclair: v0.9.0 - CVE-2023-40232
>> - LND: v.0.17.0-beta - CVE-2023-40233
>> - Core-Lightning: v.23.08.01 - CVE-2023-40234
>>
>> While neither replacement cycling attacks have been observed or reported
>> in the wild since the last
>> ~10 months or experimented in real-world conditions on bitcoin mainet,
>> functional test is available
>> exercising the affected lightning channel against bitcoin core mempool
>> (26.0 release cycle).
>>
>> It is understood that a simple replacement cycling attack does not demand
>> privileged capabilities
>> from an attacker (e.g no low-hashrate power) and only access to basic
>> bitcoin and lightning
>> software. Yet I still think executing such an attack successfully requests
>> a fair amount of bitcoin
>> technical know-how and decent preparation.
>>
>>  From my understanding of those issues, it is yet to be determined if the
>> mitigations deployed are
>> robust enough in face of advanced replacement cycling attackers,
>> especially ones able to combine
>> different classes of transaction-relay jamming such as pinnings or vetted
>> with more privileged
>> capabilities.
>>
>> Please find a list of potential affected bitcoin applications in this full
>> disclosure report using
>> bitcoin script timelocks or multi-party transactions, albeit no immediate
>> security risk exposure as
>> severe as the ones affecting lightning has been identified. Only cursory
>> review of non-lightning
>> applications has been conducted so far.
>>
>> There is a paper published summarizing replacement cycling attacks on the
>> lightning network:
>> https://github.com/ariard/mempool-research/blob/2023-10-replacement-paper/replacement-cycling.pdf
>>
>> <https://github.com/ariard/mempool-research/blob/2023-10-replacement-paper/replacement-cycling.pdf>
>>
>>   ## Problem
>>
>> A lightning node allows HTLCs forwarding (in bolt3's parlance accepted
>> HTLC on incoming link and
>> offered HTLC on outgoing link) should settle the outgoing state with
>> either a success or timeout
>> before the incoming state timelock becomes final and an asymmetric
>> defavorable settlement might
>> happen (cf "Flood & Loot: A Systematic Attack on The Lightning Network"
>> section 2.3 for a classical
>> exposition of this lightning security property).
>>
>> Failure to satisfy this settlement requirement exposes a forwarding hop to
>> a loss of fund risk where
>> the offered HTLC is spent by the outgoing link counterparty's
>> HTLC-preimage and the accepted HTLC is
>> spent by the incoming link counterparty's HTLC-timeout.
>>
>> The specification mandates the incoming HTLC expiration timelock to be
>> spaced out by an interval of
>> `cltv_expiry_delta` from the outgoing HTLC expiration timelock, this exact
>> interval value being an
>> implementation and node policy setting. As a minimal value, the
>> specification recommends 34 blocks
>> of interval. If the timelock expiration I of the inbound HTLC is equal to
>> 100 from chain tip, the
>> timelock expiration O of the outbound HTLC must be equal to 66 blocks from
>> chain tip, giving a
>> reasonable buffer of reaction to the lightning forwarding node.
>>
>> In the lack of cooperative off-chain settlement of the HTLC on the
>> outgoing link negotiated with the
>> counterparty (either `update_fulfill_htlc` or `update_fail_htlc`) when O
>> is reached, the lightning
>> node should broadcast its commitment transaction. Once the commitment is
>> confirmed (if anchor and
>> the 1 CSV encumbrance is present), the lightning node broadcasts and
>> confirms its HTLC-timeout
>> before I height is reached.
>>
>> Here enter a replacement cycling attack. A malicious channel counterparty
>> can broadcast its
>> HTLC-preimage transaction with a higher absolute fee and higher feerate
>> than the honest HTLC-timeout
>> of the victim lightning node and triggers a replacement. Both for legacy
>> and anchor output channels,
>> a HTLC-preimage on a counterparty commitment transaction is malleable, i.e
>> additional inputs or
>> outputs can be added. The HTLC-preimage spends an unconfirmed and
>> unrelated to the channel parent
>> transaction M and conflicts its child.
>>
>> As the HTLC-preimage spends an unconfirmed input that was already included
>> in the unconfirmed and
>> unrelated child transaction (rule 2), pays an absolute higher fee of at
>> least the sum paid by the
>> HTLC-timeout and child transaction (rule 3) and the HTLC-preimage feerate
>> is greater than all
>> directly conflicting transactions (rule 6), the replacement is accepted.
>> The honest HTLC-timeout is
>> evicted out of the mempool.
>>
>> In an ulterior move, the malicious counterparty can replace the parent
>> transaction itself with
>> another candidate N satisfying the replacement rules, triggering the
>> eviction of the malicious
>> HTLC-preimage from the mempool as it was a child of the parent T.
>>
>> There is no spending candidate of the offered HTLC output for the current
>> block laying in network
>> mempools.
>>
>> This replacement cycling tricks can be repeated for each rebroadcast
>> attempt of the HTLC-timeout by
>> the honest lightning node until expiration of the inbound HTLC timelock I.
>> Once this height is
>> reached a HTLC-timeout is broadcast by the counterparty's on the incoming
>> link in collusion with the
>> one on the outgoing link broadcasting its own HTLC-preimage.
>>
>> The honest Lightning node has been "double-spent" in its HTLC forwarding.
>>
>> As a notable factor impacting the success of the attack, a lightning
>> node's honest HTLC-timeout
>> might be included in the block template of the miner winning the block
>> race and therefore realizes a
>> spent of the offered output. In practice, a replacement cycling attack
>> might over-connect to miners'
>> mempools and public reachable nodes to succeed in a fast eviction of the
>> HTLC-timeout by its
>> HTLC-preimage. As this latter transaction can come with a better
>> ancestor-score, it should be picked
>> up on the flight by economically competitive miners.
>>
>> A functional test exercising a simple replacement cycling of a HTLC
>> transaction on bitcoin core
>> mempool is available:
>> https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin/commits/2023-test-mempool
>> <https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin/commits/2023-test-mempool>
>>
>> ## Deployed LN mitigations
>>
>> Aggressive rebroadcasting: As the replacement cycling attacker benefits
>> from the HTLC-timeout being
>> usually broadcast by lightning nodes only once every block, or less the
>> replacement cycling
>> malicious transactions paid only equal the sum of the absolute fees paid
>> by the HTLC, adjusted with
>> the replacement penalty. Rebroadcasting randomly and multiple times before
>> the next block increases
>> the absolute fee cost for the attacker.
>>
>> Implemented and deployed by Eclair, Core-Lightning, LND and LDK .
>>
>> Local-mempool preimage monitoring: As the replacement cycling attacker in
>> a simple setup broadcast
>> the HTLC-preimage to all the network mempools, the honest lightning node
>> is able to catch on the
>> flight the unconfirmed HTLC-preimage, before its subsequent mempool
>> replacement. The preimage can be
>> extracted from the second-stage HTLC-preimage and used to fetch the
>> off-chain inbound HTLC with a
>> cooperative message or go on-chain with it to claim the accepted HTLC
>> output.
>>
>> Implemented and deployed by Eclair and LND.
>>
>> CLTV Expiry Delta: With every jammed block comes an absolute fee cost paid
>> by the attacker, a risk
>> of the HTLC-preimage being detected or discovered by the honest lightning
>> node, or the HTLC-timeout
>> to slip in a winning block template. Bumping the default CLTV delta
>> hardens the odds of success of a
>> simple replacement cycling attack.
>>
>> Default setting: Eclair 144, Core-Lightning 34, LND 80 and LDK 72.
>>
>> ## Affected Bitcoin Protocols and Applications
>>
>>  From my understanding the following list of Bitcoin protocols and
>> applications could be affected by
>> new denial-of-service vectors under some level of network mempools
>> congestion. Neither tests or
>> advanced review of specifications (when available) has been conducted for
>> each of them:
>> - on-chain DLCs
>> - coinjoins
>> - payjoins
>> - wallets with time-sensitive paths
>> - peerswap and submarine swaps
>> - batch payouts
>> - transaction "accelerators"
>>
>> Inviting their developers, maintainers and operators to investigate how
>> replacement cycling attacks
>> might disrupt their in-mempool chain of transactions, or fee-bumping flows
>> at the shortest delay.
>> Simple flows and non-multi-party transactions should not be affected to
>> the best of my understanding.
>>
>> ## Open Problems: Package Malleability
>>
>> Pinning attacks have been known for years as a practical vector to
>> compromise lightning channels
>> funds safety, under different scenarios (cf. current bip331's motivation
>> section). Mitigations at
>> the mempool level have been designed, discussed and are under
>> implementation by the community
>> (ancestor package relay + nverrsion=3 policy). Ideally, they should
>> constraint a pinning attacker to
>> always attach a high feerate package (commitment + CPFP) to replace the
>> honest package, or allow a
>> honest lightning node to overbid a malicious pinning package and get its
>> time-sensitive transaction
>> optimistically included in the chain.
>>
>> Replacement cycling attack seem to offer a new way to neutralize the
>> design goals of package relay
>> and its companion nversion=3 policy, where an attacker package RBF a
>> honest package out of the
>> mempool to subsequently double-spend its own high-fee child with a
>> transaction unrelated to the
>> channel. As the remaining commitment transaction is pre-signed with a
>> minimal relay fee, it can be
>> evicted out of the mempool.
>>
>> A functional test exercising a simple replacement cycling of a lightning
>> channel commitment
>> transaction on top of the nversion=3 code branch is available:
>> https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin/commits/2023-10-test-mempool-2
>> <https://github.com/ariard/bitcoin/commits/2023-10-test-mempool-2>
>>
>> ## Discovery
>>
>> In 2018, the issue of static fees for pre-signed lightning transactions is
>> made more widely known,
>> the carve-out exemption in mempool rules to mitigate in-mempool package
>> limits pinning and the
>> anchor output pattern are proposed.
>>
>> In 2019, bitcoin core 0.19 is released with carve-out support. Continued
>> discussion of the anchor
>> output pattern as a dynamic fee-bumping method.
>>
>> In 2020, draft of anchor output submitted to the bolts. Initial finding of
>> economic pinning against
>> lightning commitment and second-stage HTLC transactions. Subsequent
>> discussions of a
>> preimage-overlay network or package-relay as mitigations. Public call made
>> to inquiry more on
>> potential other transaction-relay jamming attacks affecting lightning.
>>
>> In 2021, initial work in bitcoin core 22.0 of package acceptance.
>> Continued discussion of the
>> pinning attacks and shortcomings of current mempool rules during
>> community-wide online workshops.
>> Later the year, in light of all issues for bitcoin second-layers, a
>> proposal is made about killing
>> the mempool.
>>
>> In 2022, bip proposed for package relay and new proposed v3 policy design
>> proposed for a review and
>> implementation. Mempoolfullrbf is supported in bitcoin core 24.0 and
>> conceptual questions about
>> alignment of mempool rules w.r.t miners incentives are investigated.
>>
>> Along this year 2022, eltoo lightning channels design are discussed,
>> implemented and reviewed. In
>> this context and after discussions on mempool anti-DoS rules, I discovered
>> this new replacement
>> cycling attack was affecting deployed lightning channels and immediately
>> reported the finding to
>> some bitcoin core developers and lightning maintainers.
>>
>> ## Timeline
>>
>> - 2022-12-16: Report of the finding to Suhas Daftuar, Anthony Towns, Greg
>> Sanders and Gloria Zhao
>> - 2022-12-16: Report to LN maintainers: Rusty Russell, Bastien Teinturier,
>> Matt Corallo and Olaoluwa
>> Osuntunkun
>> - 2022-12-23: Sharing to Eugene Siegel (LND)
>> - 2022-12-24: Sharing to James O'Beirne and Antoine Poinsot (non-lightning
>> potential affected projects)
>> - 2022-01-14: Sharing to Gleb Naumenko (miners incentives and cross-layers
>> issuers) and initial
>> proposal of an early public disclosure
>> - 2022-01-19: Collection of analysis if other second-layers and
>> multi-party applications affected.
>> LN mitigations development starts.
>> - 2023-05-04: Sharing to Wilmer Paulino (LDK)
>> - 2023-06-20: LN mitigations implemented and progressively released. Week
>> of the 16 october proposed
>> for full disclosure.
>> - 2023-08-10: CVEs assigned by MITRE
>> - 2023-10-05: Pre-disclosure of LN CVEs numbers and replacement cycling
>> attack existence to
>> secur...@bitcoincore.org <mailto:secur...@bitcoincore.org>.
>> - 2023-10-16: Full disclosure of CVE-2023-40231 / CVE-2023-40232 /
>> CVE-2023-40233 / CVE-2023-40234
>> and replacement cycling attacks
>>
>> ## Conclusion
>>
>> Despite the line of mitigations adopted and deployed by current major
>> lightning implementations, I
>> believe replacement cycling attacks are still practical for advanced
>> attackers. Beyond this new
>> attack might come as a way to partially or completely defeat some of the
>> pinning mitigations which
>> have been working for years as a community.
>>
>> As of today, it is uncertain to me if lightning is not affected by a more
>> severe long-term package
>> malleability critical security issue under current consensus rules, and if
>> any other time-sensitive
>> multi-party protocol, designed or deployed isn't de facto affected too
>> (loss of funds or denial of
>> service).
>>
>> Assuming analysis on package malleability is correct, it is unclear to me
>> if it can be corrected by
>> changes in replacement / eviction rules or mempool chain of transactions
>> processing strategy.
>> Inviting my technical peers and the bitcoin community to look more on this
>> issue, including to
>> dissent. I'll be the first one pleased if I'm fundamentally wrong on those
>> issues, or if any element
>> has not been weighted with the adequate technical accuracy it deserves.
>>
>> Do not trust, verify. All mistakes and opinions are my own.
>>
>> Antoine
>>
>> "meet with Triumph and Disaster. And treat those two impostors just the
>> same" - K.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Lightning-dev mailing list
>> lightning-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
>> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/lightning-dev
> _______________________________________________
> bitcoin-dev mailing list
> bitcoin-...@lists.linuxfoundation.org
> https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/bitcoin-dev
>