Skip to content

feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) #673

Closed
Closed
feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion)#673

Description

@julianknutsen
julianknutsen
opened on Aug 23, 2020

The current design leaves excess bytes in the read_buffer across state transitions. This means that excess bytes would be processed as part of the next process_act(). This makes sense in the Responder::Act3 case since The Initiator has everything it needs to send the Init message and could just send it along directly after Act3. But, for Act1 & Act2 this isn't valid because the remote peer would need interleaved responses in order to generate the correct data. In those invalid cases, the code can fail early.

Is it worth being robust to handshake act sizes that are invalid prior to the next received bytes that would generate the failure?

from @ariard

At first, I thought it would add a padding oracle but in fact I don't see how an attacker would learn anything as the error would be triggered by him and remote honest party learn communication has been tampered by either receiving such error message or not receiving anything new. So I think it's okay but I would like to look through Noise rational here, BOLT8 might not leak all Noise assumptions.

Relevant patch:

feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes
Proper handshake peers won't send more bytes than required for
act1 and act2 and it is impossible to generate future acts
without first receiving an interleaved response. In those cases, the
peer is misbehaving and we can fail early.

0001-feature-Tighten-the-constraints-for-act-message-size.patch.txt

Metadata

Metadata

Assignees

No one assigned

    Labels

    No labels
    No labels

    Type

    No type

    Projects

    No projects

      Milestone

      No milestone

      Relationships

      None yet

      Development

      No branches or pull requests

      Issue actions

      , 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all 
       blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) · Issue #673 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
      Skip to content
      feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) #673
      Closed
      Closed
      feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion)#673
      Description
      @julianknutsen
      julianknutsen
      opened on Aug 23, 2020
      The current design leaves excess bytes in the read_buffer across state transitions. This means that excess bytes would be processed as part of the next process_act(). This makes sense in the Responder::Act3 case since The Initiator has everything it needs to send the Init message and could just send it along directly after Act3. But, for Act1 & Act2 this isn't valid because the remote peer would need interleaved responses in order to generate the correct data. In those invalid cases, the code can fail early.
      Is it worth being robust to handshake act sizes that are invalid prior to the next received bytes that would generate the failure?
      from @ariard
      At first, I thought it would add a padding oracle but in fact I don't see how an attacker would learn anything as the error would be triggered by him and remote honest party learn communication has been tampered by either receiving such error message or not receiving anything new. So I think it's okay but I would like to look through Noise rational here, BOLT8 might not leak all Noise assumptions.
      Relevant patch:
      feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes
Proper handshake peers won't send more bytes than required for
act1 and act2 and it is impossible to generate future acts
without first receiving an interleaved response. In those cases, the
peer is misbehaving and we can fail early.

      0001-feature-Tighten-the-constraints-for-act-message-size.patch.txt
      Metadata
      Metadata
      Assignees
      No one assigned
        Labels
        No labels
        No labels
        Type
        No type
        Projects
        No projects
          Milestone
          No milestone
          Relationships
          None yet
          Development
          No branches or pull requests
          Issue actions
          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Force GitHub README to respect dark mode
(function() {
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '
.markdown-body {
color-scheme: dark light;
}
.markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; }
.markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; }
.markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; }
.markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; }
.markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; }
.markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; }
';
document.head.appendChild(style);
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) · Issue #673 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
          Skip to content
          feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) #673
          Closed
          Closed
          feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion)#673
          Description
          @julianknutsen
          julianknutsen
          opened on Aug 23, 2020
          The current design leaves excess bytes in the read_buffer across state transitions. This means that excess bytes would be processed as part of the next process_act(). This makes sense in the Responder::Act3 case since The Initiator has everything it needs to send the Init message and could just send it along directly after Act3. But, for Act1 & Act2 this isn't valid because the remote peer would need interleaved responses in order to generate the correct data. In those invalid cases, the code can fail early.
          Is it worth being robust to handshake act sizes that are invalid prior to the next received bytes that would generate the failure?
          from @ariard
          At first, I thought it would add a padding oracle but in fact I don't see how an attacker would learn anything as the error would be triggered by him and remote honest party learn communication has been tampered by either receiving such error message or not receiving anything new. So I think it's okay but I would like to look through Noise rational here, BOLT8 might not leak all Noise assumptions.
          Relevant patch:
          feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes
Proper handshake peers won't send more bytes than required for
act1 and act2 and it is impossible to generate future acts
without first receiving an interleaved response. In those cases, the
peer is misbehaving and we can fail early.

          0001-feature-Tighten-the-constraints-for-act-message-size.patch.txt
          Metadata
          Metadata
          Assignees
          No one assigned
            Labels
            No labels
            No labels
            Type
            No type
            Projects
            No projects
              Milestone
              No milestone
              Relationships
              None yet
              Development
              No branches or pull requests
              Issue actions
              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer
(function() {
var ref = document.referrer;
var terms = [];
if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) {
var url = new URL(ref);
var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p');
if (q) {
terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; });
}
}
if (terms.length === 0) return;
var style = document.createElement('style');
style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }';
document.head.appendChild(style);
function highlight(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node
var text = node.textContent;
var found = false;
terms.forEach(function(term) {
var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi');
if (regex.test(text)) {
found = true;
var frag = document.createDocumentFragment();
var parts = text.split(regex);
parts.forEach(function(part, i) {
if (i % 2 === 0) {
frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part));
} else {
var span = document.createElement('span');
span.className = 'userscript-highlight';
span.textContent = part;
frag.appendChild(span);
}
});
node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node);
}
});
} else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element
var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT'];
if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) {
Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight);
}
}
}
highlight(document.body);
// Re-highlight on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node);
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) · Issue #673 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
              Skip to content
              feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) #673
              Closed
              Closed
              feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion)#673
              Description
              @julianknutsen
              julianknutsen
              opened on Aug 23, 2020
              The current design leaves excess bytes in the read_buffer across state transitions. This means that excess bytes would be processed as part of the next process_act(). This makes sense in the Responder::Act3 case since The Initiator has everything it needs to send the Init message and could just send it along directly after Act3. But, for Act1 & Act2 this isn't valid because the remote peer would need interleaved responses in order to generate the correct data. In those invalid cases, the code can fail early.
              Is it worth being robust to handshake act sizes that are invalid prior to the next received bytes that would generate the failure?
              from @ariard
              At first, I thought it would add a padding oracle but in fact I don't see how an attacker would learn anything as the error would be triggered by him and remote honest party learn communication has been tampered by either receiving such error message or not receiving anything new. So I think it's okay but I would like to look through Noise rational here, BOLT8 might not leak all Noise assumptions.
              Relevant patch:
              feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes
Proper handshake peers won't send more bytes than required for
act1 and act2 and it is impossible to generate future acts
without first receiving an interleaved response. In those cases, the
peer is misbehaving and we can fail early.

              0001-feature-Tighten-the-constraints-for-act-message-size.patch.txt
              Metadata
              Metadata
              Assignees
              No one assigned
                Labels
                No labels
                No labels
                Type
                No type
                Projects
                No projects
                  Milestone
                  No milestone
                  Relationships
                  None yet
                  Development
                  No branches or pull requests
                  Issue actions
                  
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page
(function() {
var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content',
'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid',
'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign'];
function cleanUrl(url) {
try {
var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin);
var changed = false;
trackingParams.forEach(function(p) {
if (u.searchParams.has(p)) {
u.searchParams.delete(p);
changed = true;
}
});
return changed ? u.toString() : url;
} catch (e) {
return url;
}
}
function cleanLinks() {
document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
cleanLinks();
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
mutations.forEach(function(m) {
m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) {
if (node.nodeType === 1) {
if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks();
node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) {
var clean = cleanUrl(a.href);
if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean;
});
}
});
});
});
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "youtube.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + '
feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) · Issue #673 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
                  Skip to content
                  feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) #673
                  Closed
                  Closed
                  feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion)#673
                  Description
                  @julianknutsen
                  julianknutsen
                  opened on Aug 23, 2020
                  The current design leaves excess bytes in the read_buffer across state transitions. This means that excess bytes would be processed as part of the next process_act(). This makes sense in the Responder::Act3 case since The Initiator has everything it needs to send the Init message and could just send it along directly after Act3. But, for Act1 & Act2 this isn't valid because the remote peer would need interleaved responses in order to generate the correct data. In those invalid cases, the code can fail early.
                  Is it worth being robust to handshake act sizes that are invalid prior to the next received bytes that would generate the failure?
                  from @ariard
                  At first, I thought it would add a padding oracle but in fact I don't see how an attacker would learn anything as the error would be triggered by him and remote honest party learn communication has been tampered by either receiving such error message or not receiving anything new. So I think it's okay but I would like to look through Noise rational here, BOLT8 might not leak all Noise assumptions.
                  Relevant patch:
                  feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes
Proper handshake peers won't send more bytes than required for
act1 and act2 and it is impossible to generate future acts
without first receiving an interleaved response. In those cases, the
peer is misbehaving and we can fail early.

                  0001-feature-Tighten-the-constraints-for-act-message-size.patch.txt
                  Metadata
                  Metadata
                  Assignees
                  No one assigned
                    Labels
                    No labels
                    No labels
                    Type
                    No type
                    Projects
                    No projects
                      Milestone
                      No milestone
                      Relationships
                      None yet
                      Development
                      No branches or pull requests
                      Issue actions
                      
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube
(function() {
function tryTheater() {
var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]');
if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) {
btn.click();
}
}
// Try immediately
tryTheater();
// Try after navigation (SPA)
var lastUrl = location.href;
setInterval(function() {
if (location.href !== lastUrl) {
lastUrl = location.href;
setTimeout(tryTheater, 500);
}
}, 1000);
// Also try on player load
var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) · Issue #673 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
                      Skip to content
                      feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) #673
                      Closed
                      Closed
                      feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion)#673
                      Description
                      @julianknutsen
                      julianknutsen
                      opened on Aug 23, 2020
                      The current design leaves excess bytes in the read_buffer across state transitions. This means that excess bytes would be processed as part of the next process_act(). This makes sense in the Responder::Act3 case since The Initiator has everything it needs to send the Init message and could just send it along directly after Act3. But, for Act1 & Act2 this isn't valid because the remote peer would need interleaved responses in order to generate the correct data. In those invalid cases, the code can fail early.
                      Is it worth being robust to handshake act sizes that are invalid prior to the next received bytes that would generate the failure?
                      from @ariard
                      At first, I thought it would add a padding oracle but in fact I don't see how an attacker would learn anything as the error would be triggered by him and remote honest party learn communication has been tampered by either receiving such error message or not receiving anything new. So I think it's okay but I would like to look through Noise rational here, BOLT8 might not leak all Noise assumptions.
                      Relevant patch:
                      feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes
Proper handshake peers won't send more bytes than required for
act1 and act2 and it is impossible to generate future acts
without first receiving an interleaved response. In those cases, the
peer is misbehaving and we can fail early.

                      0001-feature-Tighten-the-constraints-for-act-message-size.patch.txt
                      Metadata
                      Metadata
                      Assignees
                      No one assigned
                        Labels
                        No labels
                        No labels
                        Type
                        No type
                        Projects
                        No projects
                          Milestone
                          No milestone
                          Relationships
                          None yet
                          Development
                          No branches or pull requests
                          Issue actions
                          
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content
(function() {
function unstick() {
document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) {
if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') {
el.style.position = 'static';
el.style.top = 'auto';
el.style.zIndex = 'auto';
}
});
}
unstick();
var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "*";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + '
feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) · Issue #673 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
                          Skip to content
                          feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) #673
                          Closed
                          Closed
                          feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion)#673
                          Description
                          @julianknutsen
                          julianknutsen
                          opened on Aug 23, 2020
                          The current design leaves excess bytes in the read_buffer across state transitions. This means that excess bytes would be processed as part of the next process_act(). This makes sense in the Responder::Act3 case since The Initiator has everything it needs to send the Init message and could just send it along directly after Act3. But, for Act1 & Act2 this isn't valid because the remote peer would need interleaved responses in order to generate the correct data. In those invalid cases, the code can fail early.
                          Is it worth being robust to handshake act sizes that are invalid prior to the next received bytes that would generate the failure?
                          from @ariard
                          At first, I thought it would add a padding oracle but in fact I don't see how an attacker would learn anything as the error would be triggered by him and remote honest party learn communication has been tampered by either receiving such error message or not receiving anything new. So I think it's okay but I would like to look through Noise rational here, BOLT8 might not leak all Noise assumptions.
                          Relevant patch:
                          feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes
Proper handshake peers won't send more bytes than required for
act1 and act2 and it is impossible to generate future acts
without first receiving an interleaved response. In those cases, the
peer is misbehaving and we can fail early.

                          0001-feature-Tighten-the-constraints-for-act-message-size.patch.txt
                          Metadata
                          Metadata
                          Assignees
                          No one assigned
                            Labels
                            No labels
                            No labels
                            Type
                            No type
                            Projects
                            No projects
                              Milestone
                              No milestone
                              Relationships
                              None yet
                              Development
                              No branches or pull requests
                              Issue actions
                              
, 'i');
if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) {
// Universal Dark Mode - works on any site
(function() {
var enabled = true;
function applyDarkMode() {
if (!enabled) return;
// Create style element if it doesn't exist
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (!style) {
style = document.createElement('style');
style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style';
document.head.appendChild(style);
}
// Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video
style.textContent = '
/* Invert everything except media */
html {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #1a1a2e !important;
}
/* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */
img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
}
/* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */
.no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *,
[data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"],
.ace_editor, .ace_editor *,
.CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *,
.monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *,
.markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *,
.highlight, .highlight *,
pre code, pre code * {
filter: none !important;
}
/* Fix common UI elements */
.modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover {
filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important;
background: #2d2d44 !important;
border-color: #444 !important;
}
/* Scrollbars */
::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; }
::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; }
/* Selection */
::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; }
';
}
function removeDarkMode() {
var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style');
if (style) style.remove();
}
// Toggle with Alt+Shift+D
document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) {
if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') {
e.preventDefault();
enabled = !enabled;
if (enabled) {
applyDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled');
} else {
removeDarkMode();
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled');
}
}
});
// Apply on load
applyDarkMode();
// Re-apply on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) {
if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) {
applyDarkMode();
}
});
observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true });
console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle');
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); }
})();
})();
feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) · Issue #673 · lightningdevkit/rust-lightning · GitHub
                              Skip to content
                              feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion) #673
                              Closed
                              Closed
                              feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes (discussion)#673
                              Description
                              @julianknutsen
                              julianknutsen
                              opened on Aug 23, 2020
                              The current design leaves excess bytes in the read_buffer across state transitions. This means that excess bytes would be processed as part of the next process_act(). This makes sense in the Responder::Act3 case since The Initiator has everything it needs to send the Init message and could just send it along directly after Act3. But, for Act1 & Act2 this isn't valid because the remote peer would need interleaved responses in order to generate the correct data. In those invalid cases, the code can fail early.
                              Is it worth being robust to handshake act sizes that are invalid prior to the next received bytes that would generate the failure?
                              from @ariard
                              At first, I thought it would add a padding oracle but in fact I don't see how an attacker would learn anything as the error would be triggered by him and remote honest party learn communication has been tampered by either receiving such error message or not receiving anything new. So I think it's okay but I would like to look through Noise rational here, BOLT8 might not leak all Noise assumptions.
                              Relevant patch:
                              feature: Tighten the constraints for act message sizes
Proper handshake peers won't send more bytes than required for
act1 and act2 and it is impossible to generate future acts
without first receiving an interleaved response. In those cases, the
peer is misbehaving and we can fail early.

                              0001-feature-Tighten-the-constraints-for-act-message-size.patch.txt
                              Metadata
                              Metadata
                              Assignees
                              No one assigned
                                Labels
                                No labels
                                No labels
                                Type
                                No type
                                Projects
                                No projects
                                  Milestone
                                  No milestone
                                  Relationships
                                  None yet
                                  Development
                                  No branches or pull requests
                                  Issue actions