Date: Sun, 7 Apr 2013 18:21:00 +0200
From: Pieter Wuille <pieter.wuille@gmail.com>
To: Mike Hearn <mike@plan99.net>
Message-ID: <20130407162059.GA19420@vps7135.xlshosting.net>
References: <CAPg+sBhYuK79Gost2p1ksytNUTjAHz1REC1DRQaP2UD=cjRA0g@mail.gmail.com>
	<CANEZrP3hu4C6-3gNFAcz85WL4HR+McHGiLG8E+-35VwyFGz7mw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CANEZrP3hu4C6-3gNFAcz85WL4HR+McHGiLG8E+-35VwyFGz7mw@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)
Cc: Bitcoin Dev <bitcoin-development@lists.sourceforge.net>
Subject: Re: [Bitcoin-development] Who is creating non-DER signatures?
Precedence: list

On Sun, Apr 07, 2013 at 06:01:13PM +0200, Mike Hearn wrote:
> It'd help to know how the signatures are invalid.

The majority (~90%) is negative R or S values (which are just interpreted as
unsigned by OpenSSL, but if the top byte has its highest bit set, it must be
preceeded by a 0x00 accordinging to DER). A smaller number uses excessively
padded R or S value (with a 0x00 in front when it's not necessary). Finally
there are 4 signatures with an incorrect length marker in the beginning
(which likely means they contain some garbage at the end).

-- 
Pieter