Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

BLS12-381 Replay Attacks #304

Closed
MaxMustermann2 opened this issue Feb 13, 2025 · 1 comment · Fixed by #314
Closed

BLS12-381 Replay Attacks #304

MaxMustermann2 opened this issue Feb 13, 2025 · 1 comment · Fixed by #314
Assignees

Comments

@MaxMustermann2
Copy link
Contributor

The x/avs module is vulnerable to rogue key attacks. An attacker can combine fake keys or signatures to bypass security checks, which could weaken the system.

Proposed Solution

Require users to prove they own their keys before using them. This can be done by asking them to submit a small extra signature when registering their key. Typically such a message should contain the protocol name (exocore) to prevent replay attacks on other chains and the operator's own address to prevent usage by another operator upon the first operator's withdrawal from the system.

@MaxMustermann2
Copy link
Contributor Author

Upon reviewing the related PR, it seems that a check of key ownership was already present. However, it was vulnerable to replay attacks since any arbitrary message could be signed by the operator and then verified. The PR instead changes it to a constant message containing the chain-id and the operator's account address to prevent even these kinds of attacks.

Separately, it should be noted that registering another BLS key by the same operator for another AVS is not permitted. This appears to be an intentional design choice to discourage operators from reusing the same BLS key across multiple AVSs. The same choice has not been applied to operator consensus keys.

@MaxMustermann2 MaxMustermann2 changed the title BLS12-381 Rogue Key Attacks BLS12-381 Replay Attacks Feb 21, 2025
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants