Hey Matt,
Great work on finding this issue, thoroughly testing it against
implementations,
and on the follow-up you did after reporting this to the various teams.
We all agree that having more people spending time poking at the code
to find issues is very beneficial for the project. I hope your
Hi Matt,
> You've definitely done some review for some subset of code, mostly the
anchors code which was added
> not too long ago, but please don't pretend you've reviewed a large volume
of the pull requests in
> LDK, as far as I understand you have several other projects you focus
heavily on,
On 8/26/23 5:03 AM, Antoine Riard wrote:
Hi Matt,
> While you were aware of these fixes at the time, I'd appreciate it if you,
someone who hasn't spent
> much time contributing to LDK over the past two or three years, stop trying
to speak on behalf of
> the LDK project.
While this
Hi Matt,
> While you were aware of these fixes at the time, I'd appreciate it if
you, someone who hasn't spent
> much time contributing to LDK over the past two or three years, stop
trying to speak on behalf of
> the LDK project.
While this statement is blatantly false and disregards all the
While you were aware of these fixes at the time, I'd appreciate it if you, someone who hasn't spent
much time contributing to LDK over the past two or three years, stop trying to speak on behalf of
the LDK project.
Thanks,
Matt
On 8/24/23 4:33 PM, Antoine Riard wrote:
Hi Matt,
Thanks for
Hi Matt,
Thanks for the great work here.
Confirming the v0.0.114 release number for the LDK "fake" lightning
channels mitigations.
>From the LDK-side, the vulnerability didn't come as novel knowledge, we
have thought of potential DoS issues in peer state machine handling (e.g
[0]) a long time
