MarketTakers/arbiter
5
0
Fork 0
Code Issues 27 Pull Requests 4 Packages Projects Releases Wiki Activity

Integrity MAC depends on unordered SQLite row ordering #69

New Issue
Closed
opened 2026-04-05 16:23:10 +00:00 by Skipper · 1 comment
Skipper commented 2026-04-05 16:23:10 +00:00
Owner
Copy Link

Info

Severity: LOW
Attack vector: offline

Impact

Can cause spurious integrity verification failures and deny service, even when the underlying data is logically unchanged.

Description

Entity verification serializes vectors such as targets and volume rate limits using the order returned from SQLite. Some of those rows are fetched without an explicit ORDER BY, so logically identical data may be serialized in a different order and produce a different MAC.

Example flow

  1. Read or reconstruct logically identical rows in a different database order.
  2. Serialize the entity into postcard format.
  3. Verify the MAC against the original envelope.
  4. Fail verification because the vector ordering changed.

Mitigation

Sort the relevant collections before serialization or add explicit ORDER BY clauses to every query that feeds MAC-protected vectors.

# Info **Severity**: **LOW** Attack vector: offline ## Impact Can cause spurious integrity verification failures and deny service, even when the underlying data is logically unchanged. ## Description Entity verification serializes vectors such as targets and volume rate limits using the order returned from SQLite. Some of those rows are fetched without an explicit `ORDER BY`, so logically identical data may be serialized in a different order and produce a different MAC. ## Example flow 1. Read or reconstruct logically identical rows in a different database order. 2. Serialize the entity into postcard format. 3. Verify the MAC against the original envelope. 4. Fail verification because the vector ordering changed. ## Mitigation Sort the relevant collections before serialization or add explicit `ORDER BY` clauses to every query that feeds MAC-protected vectors.
Skipper self-assigned this 2026-04-06 13:40:01 +00:00
Skipper commented 2026-04-06 15:42:34 +00:00
Author
Owner
Copy Link

#77

#77
Sign in to join this conversation.
No Branch/Tag Specified
Branches Tags
Labels
Clear labels
Compat
Breaking
Breaking change that won't be backward compatible
Difficulty
High
3
Hard difficulty. Experience needed to fix: A lot.
Difficulty
Low
1
Easy difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Not much. Good first issue.
Difficulty
Medium
2
Medium difficulty. Experience needed to fix: Intermediate.
Kind
Bug
This is a bug.
Kind
Enhancement
Improve existing functionality.
Kind
Feature
New functionality
Kind
RFC
Request for comments
Kind
Security
This is security issue
Kind
Testing
This is testing issue.
Kind
Tracking issue
An issue tracking the progress of sth. like the implementation of an RFC
Priority
Critical
1
The priority is critical
Priority
High
2
The priority is high
Priority
Low
4
The priority is low
Priority
Medium
3
The priority is medium
Reviewed
Confirmed
1
Issue has been confirmed
Reviewed
Duplicate
2
This issue or pull request already exists
Reviewed
Invalid
3
Invalid issue
Reviewed
Pending
4
Requires review by dev
Reviewed
Won't Fix
3
This issue won't be fixed
Status
Abandoned
3
Somebody has started to work on this but abandoned work
Status
Blocked
1
Something is blocking this issue or pull request
Status
Need More Info
2
Feedback is required to reproduce issue or to continue work
No Label
Milestone
No items
No Milestone
Projects
Clear projects
No project
Assignees
Clear assignees
CleverWild Skipper goodvin testuser
No Assignees Skipper
1 Participants
Notifications
Due Date
No due date set.
Dependencies

No dependencies set.

Reference: MarketTakers/arbiter#69
Delete Branch "%!s()"

Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?