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

Reject offers with amount set to `0` (#3265)

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Bastien Teinturier

76/100 · Adequate
Reject offers with amount set to `0` (#3265)

This doesn't make any sense, the field should be omitted if any amount
is acceptable: setting it to `0` is confusing.

See https://github.com/lightning/bolts/pull/1316
✓ Descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context✓ Links an issue, advisory, or supporting reference
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit tightens validation of Lightning Network 'offers' (a way for a merchant to publish a payment request). Previously, an offer could include an amount field set to zero, which the protocol designers consider invalid and confusing. The change makes Eclair reject such offers. The main risk is that an attacker or buggy peer could send a zero-amount offer and, before this patch, Eclair might have accepted or processed it in an unintended way. The commit itself is a straightforward validation fix and does not show an active exploit.

Recommended action

Treat as a low-severity hardening patch. Review whether zero-amount offers could have caused incorrect routing, accounting, or user-facing behavior in prior versions, but no urgent response is indicated by the diff alone.

Security signals we found

01

Input validation hardening for BOLT12 offer_amount

02

Reference to upstream BOLT specification change (bolts PR 1316)

03

New negative test vectors for zero offer_amount with and without currency

Risk score

Why this scored 28/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 4/30
Exploitability 3/25
Stealth signal 4/15
Affected reach 5/15
Confidence 8/10
Evidence quality 4/5
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.