Tangem Wallet Pack of 2 - Secure Crypto Wallet - Trusted Cold Storage for Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT's &

Tangem Wallet Pack of 2 - Secure Crypto Wallet - Trusted Cold Storage for Bitcoin, Ethereum, NFT's &
Key item features Ultimate Security: Generates a private key that remains on the card, safeguarding crypto and NFTs from hackers with EAL6+ certification and audited firmware. Versatile Compatibility: Manages over 13,000 tokens across 70+ blockchains, supporting DeFi, NFTs, and DeEx without wires, Bluetooth, or USB. Effortless Operation: Utilizes NFC for secure transactions via a mobile device and the Tangem app, enabling buying and selling crypto with various payment methods. Smart Backup: Features a second Tangem Wallet as a backup, eliminating the need for paper, pictures, or seed phrases for recovery. Durable Design: Boasts IP68 protection against environmental conditions, ensuring longevity and robust physical security. Comprehensive Support: Compatible with Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP, USDT, and over 6,000 cryptocurrencies, integrating with dApps and WalletConnect.

LBANK

Does OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK intentionally allow cross-UTXO signature reuse?

I ran a CSFS experiment on Bitcoin Inquisition Signet and got a spend confirmed:

https://mempool.space/signet/tx/cc1b6d352f75348b6a52c7f5c68fc5caea2512423e08011e8f69a9bb85195f97

The tapscript is simply:

<pubkey> OP_CHECKSIGFROMSTACK

The witness provides (sig, msg, script, control_block).

Since (sig, msg) becomes public after spending, if another UTXO is later sent to the same script, anyone could reuse the exact same pair to spend it — because CSFS only enforces:

schnorr_verify(pubkey, msg, sig)

with no commitment to the spending transaction. By contrast, OP_CHECKSIG signatures commit to the input outpoint, so cross-UTXO reuse is impossible.

This leads to three questions:

  1. Is cross-UTXO signature reuse an intentional property of CSFS, or a risk that must be handled at the script level?
  2. What are the standard patterns to prevent unintended reuse — include the outpoint in msg? combine with OP_CHECKSIG?
  3. In oracle constructions where reuse is desirable (e.g., attesting "BTC > 100k"), is this the intended security model?


from Recent Questions - Bitcoin Stack Exchange https://ift.tt/DjpRtOn
via IFTTT

Popular posts from this blog

Crypto Exec Warns Tokenization Is Moving Faster Than Expected

Bitcoin Mining Could Be Strengthening The Ruble, Russian Central Bank Says

Nigerian SEC Partners With Police To Tackle Crypto Ponzi Schemes – Details