AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Low 28 Bitcoin

common: routines to create and validate payer proofs.

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Rusty Russell

73/100 · Adequate
common: routines to create and validate payer proofs.

Claude helped debug, using the LDK implementation at first, then
modified heavily.

Co-Authored-By: Claude Sonnet 4.6 <noreply@anthropic.com>
Signed-off-by: Rusty Russell <rusty@rustcorp.com.au>
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit adds new code for creating and checking 'payer proofs' in Core Lightning, a feature used with BOLT 12 invoices. A payer proof lets someone who paid an invoice selectively reveal parts of it while keeping other parts hidden. The change is a new feature implementation, not a fix for a known bug or vulnerability. There is no evidence in the commit message or diff that this is a security patch or that it addresses any disclosed issue.

Recommended action

Review the new payer proof implementation for spec compliance and edge cases, especially around TLV omission rules, merkle reconstruction, and signature verification. Run the new unit tests and consider additional fuzzing or adversarial test vectors for proof_omitted_tlvs and proof_missing_hashes handling.

Security signals we found

01

New cryptographic validation code (Schnorr signature verification, SHA256 preimage check)

02

Merkle tree reconstruction with omitted branches and missing hash resolution

03

Strict TLV omission/inclusion rules enforced in proof creation and validation

04

No mention of CVE, security fix, vulnerability, bug, or incident in commit message or diff

05

No vendor or researcher attribution for a security issue

Risk score

Why this scored 28/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 5/30
Exploitability 5/25
Stealth signal 5/15
Affected reach 5/15
Confidence 5/10
Evidence quality 3/5
Human-validated context

Community notes

Notes can correct, qualify, or add evidence to the AI analysis. Every note shown here has been validated by a human moderator.

No validated notes yet.

The AI analysis stands alone for now. Submit a note if you can add evidence or important context.