Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

ICS 15: Cosmos Signed Messages #33

Closed
wants to merge 21 commits into from
Closed
Changes from 14 commits
Commits
Show all changes
21 commits
Select commit Hold shift + click to select a range
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
147 changes: 147 additions & 0 deletions spec/ics-15-cosmos-signed-messages/README.md
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
@@ -0,0 +1,147 @@
---
ics: 15
title: Cosmos Signed Messages
stage: draft
category: misc
author: Aleksandr Bezobchuk <[email protected]>
created: 2019-03-07
modified: 2019-03-07
---

# Synopsis

Having the ability to sign messages off-chain has proven to be a fundamental aspect
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

of nearly any blockchain. The notion of signing messages off-chain has many
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Many added benefits compared to sending transactions? We should make that explicit (signing messages allows for cheaper authentication where ordering or provable state is not necessary)

added benefits such as saving on computational costs and reducing transaction
throughput and overhead. Within the context of the Cosmos, some of the major
applications of signing such data includes, but is not limited to, providing a
cryptographic secure and verifiable means of proving validator identity and
alexanderbez marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
possibly associating it with some other framework or organization. In addition,
having the ability to sign Cosmos messages with a Ledger or similar HSM device.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Sentence fragment, what do you mean?


A standardized protocol for hashing, signing, and verifying messages that can be
implemented by the Cosmos SDK and other third-party organizations is needed.

# Specification

## Desired Properties

The Cosmos message signing standardized protocol subscribes to the following:
alexanderbez marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved

* Use of a secure cryptographic hash function (e.g. resistance to collision and second
pre-image attacks)
* Hash and sign over human-readable and machine-parsable messages
* Is invulnerable to chosen ciphertext attacks
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What does this mean in the context of a hash function?

* Allow for signing over structured data
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

... why (so that UIs can parse the data and display it in a user-friendly format, presumably)

* Contains a framework for deterministic and injective encoding of structured data
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

injective to the bytes signed? It will only be injective modulo hash function collisions.

* Have builtin framework and support for domain separation and replay protection
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Choose either "Have" or "Has" consistently throughout these bullet points

* Has protection against potentially signing transactions a user did not intend to
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Interesting - what do you mean here?


## Technical Specification

The Cosmos message signing protocol will be parameterized over a secure
cryptographic hash function `y ← H(x)` and a public key DSA `(sk,pk) ← S`, where
`H` satisfies the desired properties such as having resistance to collision and
second pre-image attacks, as well as being
[deterministic](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function#Determinism) and
[uniform](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hash_function#Uniformity) and where
`S` contains the operations <code>sign<sub>sk</sub>(x) → z</code> and
<code>verify<sub>pk</sub>(x,z,H) → true|false</code> which provide digital
signatures over a set of bytes and verification of signatures respectively.

Tendermint has a well established protocol for signing messages using a canonical
JSON representation as defined [here](https://github.com/tendermint/tendermint/blob/master/types/canonical.go). With the given canonical JSON structure, the specification requires
that they include the meta fields `@chain_id` and `@type`, both of which are strings.
These meta fields are **reserved** and **must** be included. In addition, the fields
must be ordered in lexicographically ascending order.

For the purposes of signing Cosmos messages, the `@chain_id` field must correspond
to the Cosmos chain identifier. The user-agent should **refuse** signing if the
alexanderbez marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
`@chain_id` field does not match the currently active chain! The `@type` field
corresponds to the type of structure the user will be signing in an application.
The protocol allows for signing valid ASCII text and application-specific objects.
In the former case, the `@type` must be `"message"` and the latter case `@type`
must be `"object"`.

Having the ability to support domain separation of messages is also be vital as
just simply encoding messages is not sufficient. For example, some applications
may produce identical messages or structures and when signed can be valid on
both applications. Thus an optional field `domain_separator` may be provided which
is intended to include data that is specific to the application. In addition,
client may provide optional replay protection data via the fields `nonce`,
`block_height`, and `timestamp`.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

How should the user agent validate these fields?


Finally, the JSON representation must also include a `data` field which is the
application-specific user supplied message and where the type corresponds to the
value defined by the `@type` field. This must be valid ASCII text or
an application-specific object.

Thus, we can have a canonical JSON structure for signing Cosmos messages using
the [JSON schema](http://json-schema.org/) specification:

```json
{
"$schema": "http://json-schema.org/draft-04/schema#",
"$id": "cosmos/signing/typeData/schema",
"title": "The Cosmos signed message typed data schema.",
"type": "object",
"properties": {
"@chain_id": {
"type": "string",
"description": "The corresponding Cosmos chain identifier.",
"minLength": 1
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Is it possible to specify maxLength for all (most?) fields?

},
"@type": {
"type": "string",
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can this "type" be a JSON schema itself, for signing structured data?

"description": "The message type.",
"enum": [
"message",
"object"
]
},
"data": {
"type": ["string", "object"],
"description": "The application message.",
"pattern": "^[\\x20-\\x7E]+$",
"minLength": 1
},
"domain_separator": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

What are example domain separators?

"type": "string",
"description": "The application unique domain separator.",
"pattern": "^[\\x20-\\x7E]+$",
"minLength": 1
},
"nonce": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could this be a part of the domain separator?

"type": "integer",
"description": "The account nonce.",
"minimum": 0
},
"block_height": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could this be a part of the domain separator?

"type": "integer",
"description": "The chain block height.",
"minimum": 0
},
"timestamp": {
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Could this be a part of the domain separator? How should it be validated?

"type": "integer",
"minimum": 0
}
},
"required": [
"@chain_id",
"@type",
"data"
]
}
```

We can formally specify the Cosmos message signing protocol as follows.
Given a message `m` that adheres to the JSON schema defined and `M`, the set of
all possible valid messages: <code>∀m ∈ M, z ← sign<sub>sk</sub>(H(m))</code>.
Copy link
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We need a separate verify function to define this, I think - this isn't how clients will verify signed messages


# History

2019-03-07: Initial ICS 1 draft finished and submitted as a PR

# Copyright

Copyright and related rights waived via [CC0](https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/).