AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Moderate 62 Bitcoin

lightningd: don't return io logs from getlog

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Níckolas Goline

68/100 · Adequate
lightningd: don't return io logs from getlog

The io level of the log book holds the raw JSON-RPC and plugin traffic,
which can contain secrets such as runes, and getlog returns the whole
log book to its caller. Refuse level=io there: io logging remains
available in the log file, via --log-level=io.

Changelog-Changed: JSON-RPC: `getlog` no longer accepts `level=io`; io logs are only available in the log file (`--log-level=io`).
(cherry picked from commit e05c572fa3a921f85899bdf61bad68557386c824)
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit fixes a security issue in Core Lightning's `getlog` JSON-RPC command. Previously, `getlog` could return 'io' level logs, which contain raw JSON-RPC and plugin traffic including secrets like authentication runes. Now `getlog` refuses to return io logs, keeping them only in local log files for users who explicitly enable them. This prevents a caller with RPC access from extracting sensitive secrets through the log command.

Recommended action

Treat this as a security hardening fix. Users and integrators should upgrade to a release containing this commit and review any custom tooling or plugins that previously relied on `getlog level=io`, replacing it with local log file access if needed. Audit RPC permissions to ensure only trusted parties can call `getlog`.

Security signals we found

01

Removal of sensitive log level from RPC API surface

02

New parameter validator explicitly rejects io log levels in getlog

03

Commit message states io logs can contain secrets such as runes

04

Test changed from xfail to active assertion that io logs are blocked

05

Changelog documents the security-relevant behavior change

Risk score

Why this scored 62/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 18/30
Exploitability 12/25
Stealth signal 8/15
Affected reach 10/15
Confidence 9/10
Evidence quality 5/5
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.