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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

eip: remove "increment nonce" clause #353

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Oct 16, 2023
Merged

eip: remove "increment nonce" clause #353

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
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
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion eip/EIPS/eip-4337.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -1018,7 +1018,7 @@ See `https://github.com/eth-infinitism/account-abstraction/tree/main/contracts`

## Security Considerations

The entry point contract will need to be very heavily audited and formally verified, because it will serve as a central trust point for _all_ [ERC-4337](./eip-4337.md). In total, this architecture reduces auditing and formal verification load for the ecosystem, because the amount of work that individual _accounts_ have to do becomes much smaller (they need only verify the `validateUserOp` function and its "check signature, increment nonce and pay fees" logic) and check that other functions are `msg.sender == ENTRY_POINT` gated (perhaps also allowing `msg.sender == self`), but it is nevertheless the case that this is done precisely by concentrating security risk in the entry point contract that needs to be verified to be very robust.
The entry point contract will need to be very heavily audited and formally verified, because it will serve as a central trust point for _all_ [ERC-4337](./eip-4337.md). In total, this architecture reduces auditing and formal verification load for the ecosystem, because the amount of work that individual _accounts_ have to do becomes much smaller (they need only verify the `validateUserOp` function and its "check signature and pay fees" logic) and check that other functions are `msg.sender == ENTRY_POINT` gated (perhaps also allowing `msg.sender == self`), but it is nevertheless the case that this is done precisely by concentrating security risk in the entry point contract that needs to be verified to be very robust.

Verification would need to cover two primary claims (not including claims needed to protect paymasters, and claims needed to establish p2p-level DoS resistance):

Expand Down
Loading