AI-generated analysisPublished automatically and not human-verified. Validated context appears in community notes below.
← Watch feed
Informational 21 Bitcoin

Respond to `GetOrder` requests from our saved state

Public commit record

What the developer wrote

Authored by Elias Rohrer

73/100 · Adequate
Respond to `GetOrder` requests from our saved state

Previously, we'd use an event to have the user check the order status
and then call back in. As we already track the order status, we here
change that to a model where we respond immediately based on our state
and have the user/LSP update that state whenever it detects a change
(e.g., a received payment, reorg, etc.). In the next commmit we will
add/modify the corresponding API methods to do so.
✓ Specific, descriptive subject✓ Names a concrete action or component✓ Provides detailed explanatory context
The short version

What changed, and why it matters

This commit changes how a Lightning liquidity service responds to order-status lookups. Instead of asking the user/LSP to check payment status every time a client asks, it now answers immediately from saved state and lets the user/LSP push updates only when something actually changes. The change removes one event type and one callback step. It is a design/API refactor, not a clear security fix, though it does add a proper 'order not found' error response for unknown orders.

Recommended action

Treat as a normal API refactor. Review callers that previously handled `CheckPaymentConfirmation` and called `update_order_status` to ensure they migrate to the new push-update model. Verify that the synchronous 'order not found' responses do not leak order existence in a way that violates LSPS1 privacy expectations. No urgent security action is indicated by the commit itself.

Security signals we found

01

Removes asynchronous event-driven response path that could leave GetOrder requests unanswered if the user/LSP never calls back

02

Adds explicit 'order not found' error response for unknown order_id and unknown counterparty

03

Changes update_order_status to a pure state update, decoupling response generation from state mutation

04

No explicit mention of security, CVE, bug, vulnerability, or attacker in commit message or diff

Risk score

Why this scored 21/100

Our methodology →
Potential impact 3/30
Exploitability 2/25
Stealth signal 2/15
Affected reach 4/15
Confidence 7/10
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.