|
|
|
@ -224,29 +224,66 @@ uint256 CBlockHeader::GetHash() const
|
|
|
|
|
return Hash(BEGIN(nVersion), END(nNonce));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
uint256 CBlock::BuildMerkleTree() const
|
|
|
|
|
uint256 CBlock::BuildMerkleTree(bool* fMutated) const
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
// WARNING! If you're reading this because you're learning about crypto
|
|
|
|
|
// and/or designing a new system that will use merkle trees, keep in mind
|
|
|
|
|
// that the following merkle tree algorithm has a serious flaw related to
|
|
|
|
|
// duplicate txids, resulting in a vulnerability. (CVE-2012-2459) Bitcoin
|
|
|
|
|
// has since worked around the flaw, but for new applications you should
|
|
|
|
|
// use something different; don't just copy-and-paste this code without
|
|
|
|
|
// understanding the problem first.
|
|
|
|
|
/* WARNING! If you're reading this because you're learning about crypto
|
|
|
|
|
and/or designing a new system that will use merkle trees, keep in mind
|
|
|
|
|
that the following merkle tree algorithm has a serious flaw related to
|
|
|
|
|
duplicate txids, resulting in a vulnerability (CVE-2012-2459).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The reason is that if the number of hashes in the list at a given time
|
|
|
|
|
is odd, the last one is duplicated before computing the next level (which
|
|
|
|
|
is unusual in Merkle trees). This results in certain sequences of
|
|
|
|
|
transactions leading to the same merkle root. For example, these two
|
|
|
|
|
trees:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A A
|
|
|
|
|
/ \ / \
|
|
|
|
|
B C B C
|
|
|
|
|
/ \ | / \ / \
|
|
|
|
|
D E F D E F F
|
|
|
|
|
/ \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \ / \
|
|
|
|
|
1 2 3 4 5 6 1 2 3 4 5 6 5 6
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
for transaction lists [1,2,3,4,5,6] and [1,2,3,4,5,6,5,6] (where 5 and
|
|
|
|
|
6 are repeated) result in the same root hash A (because the hash of both
|
|
|
|
|
of (F) and (F,F) is C).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The vulnerability results from being able to send a block with such a
|
|
|
|
|
transaction list, with the same merkle root, and the same block hash as
|
|
|
|
|
the original without duplication, resulting in failed validation. If the
|
|
|
|
|
receiving node proceeds to mark that block as permanently invalid
|
|
|
|
|
however, it will fail to accept further unmodified (and thus potentially
|
|
|
|
|
valid) versions of the same block. We defend against this by detecting
|
|
|
|
|
the case where we would hash two identical hashes at the end of the list
|
|
|
|
|
together, and treating that identically to the block having an invalid
|
|
|
|
|
merkle root. Assuming no double-SHA256 collisions, this will detect all
|
|
|
|
|
known ways of changing the transactions without affecting the merkle
|
|
|
|
|
root.
|
|
|
|
|
*/
|
|
|
|
|
vMerkleTree.clear();
|
|
|
|
|
vMerkleTree.reserve(vtx.size() * 2 + 16); // Safe upper bound for the number of total nodes.
|
|
|
|
|
BOOST_FOREACH(const CTransaction& tx, vtx)
|
|
|
|
|
vMerkleTree.push_back(tx.GetHash());
|
|
|
|
|
int j = 0;
|
|
|
|
|
bool mutated = false;
|
|
|
|
|
for (int nSize = vtx.size(); nSize > 1; nSize = (nSize + 1) / 2)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
for (int i = 0; i < nSize; i += 2)
|
|
|
|
|
{
|
|
|
|
|
int i2 = std::min(i+1, nSize-1);
|
|
|
|
|
if (i2 == i + 1 && i2 + 1 == nSize && vMerkleTree[j+i] == vMerkleTree[j+i2]) {
|
|
|
|
|
// Two identical hashes at the end of the list at a particular level.
|
|
|
|
|
mutated = true;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
vMerkleTree.push_back(Hash(BEGIN(vMerkleTree[j+i]), END(vMerkleTree[j+i]),
|
|
|
|
|
BEGIN(vMerkleTree[j+i2]), END(vMerkleTree[j+i2])));
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
j += nSize;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
if (fMutated) {
|
|
|
|
|
*fMutated = mutated;
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
return (vMerkleTree.empty() ? 0 : vMerkleTree.back());
|
|
|
|
|
}
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|