DCIPs/eip-1271.md at 58b766a9239b34a0ac2934744f6d5124a1ba7c54

7.9 KiB

Raw Blame History

eip	title	description	author	discussions-to	status	type	category	created
1271	Standard Signature Validation Method for Contracts	Standard way to verify a signature when the account is a smart contract	Francisco Giordano (@frangio), Matt Condon (@shrugs), Philippe Castonguay (@PhABC), Amir Bandeali (@abandeali1), Jorge Izquierdo (@izqui), Bertrand Masius (@catageek)	https://github.com/ethereum/EIPs/issues/1271	Final	Standards Track	ERC	2018-07-25

Abstract

Externally Owned Accounts (EOA) can sign messages with their associated private keys, but currently contracts cannot. We propose a standard way for any contracts to verify whether a signature on a behalf of a given contract is valid. This is possible via the implementation of a isValidSignature(hash, signature) function on the signing contract, which can be called to validate a signature.

Motivation

There are and will be many contracts that want to utilize signed messages for validation of rights-to-move assets or other purposes. In order for these contracts to be able to support non Externally Owned Accounts (i.e., contract owners), we need a standard mechanism by which a contract can indicate whether a given signature is valid or not on its behalf.

One example of an application that requires signatures to be provided would be decentralized exchanges with off-chain orderbook, where buy/sell orders are signed messages. In these applications, EOAs sign orders, signaling their desire to buy/sell a given asset and giving explicit permissions to the exchange smart contracts to conclude a trade via a signature. When it comes to contracts however, regular signatures are not possible since contracts do not possess a private key, hence this proposal.

Specification

The key words "MUST", "MUST NOT", "REQUIRED", "SHALL", "SHALL NOT", "SHOULD", "SHOULD NOT", "RECOMMENDED", "MAY", and "OPTIONAL" in this document are to be interpreted as described in RFC 2119.

pragma solidity ^0.5.0;

contract ERC1271 {

  // bytes4(keccak256("isValidSignature(bytes32,bytes)")
  bytes4 constant internal MAGICVALUE = 0x1626ba7e;

  /**
   * @dev Should return whether the signature provided is valid for the provided hash
   * @param _hash      Hash of the data to be signed
   * @param _signature Signature byte array associated with _hash
   *
   * MUST return the bytes4 magic value 0x1626ba7e when function passes.
   * MUST NOT modify state (using STATICCALL for solc < 0.5, view modifier for solc > 0.5)
   * MUST allow external calls
   */ 
  function isValidSignature(
    bytes32 _hash, 
    bytes memory _signature)
    public
    view 
    returns (bytes4 magicValue);
}

isValidSignature can call arbitrary methods to validate a given signature, which could be context dependent (e.g. time based or state based), EOA dependent (e.g. signers authorization level within smart wallet), signature scheme Dependent (e.g. ECDSA, multisig, BLS), etc.

This function should be implemented by contracts which desire to sign messages (e.g. smart contract wallets, DAOs, multisignature wallets, etc.) Applications wanting to support contract signatures should call this method if the signer is a contract.

Rationale

We believe the name of the proposed function to be appropriate considering that an authorized signers providing proper signatures for a given data would see their signature as "valid" by the signing contract. Hence, an signed action message is only valid when the signer is authorized to perform a given action on the behalf of a smart wallet.

Two arguments are provided for simplicity of separating the hash signed from the signature. A bytes32 hash is used instead of the unhashed message for simplicy, since contracts could expect a certain hashing function that is not standard, such as with EIP-712.

isValidSignature() should not be able to modify states in order to prevent GasToken minting or similar attack vectors. Again, this is to simplify the implementation surface of the function for better standardization and to allow off-chain contract queries.

The specific return value is expected to be returned instead of a boolean in order to have stricter and simpler verification of a signature.

Backwards Compatibility

This EIP is backward compatible with previous work on signature validation since this method is specific to contract based signatures and not EOA signatures.

Reference Implementation

Example implementation of a signing contract:


  /**
   * @notice Verifies that the signer is the owner of the signing contract.
   */
  function isValidSignature(
    bytes32 _hash,
    bytes calldata _signature
  ) external override view returns (bytes4) {
    // Validate signatures
    if (recoverSigner(_hash, _signature) == owner) {
      return 0x1626ba7e;
    } else {
      return 0xffffffff;
    }
  }

 /**
   * @notice Recover the signer of hash, assuming it's an EOA account
   * @dev Only for EthSign signatures
   * @param _hash       Hash of message that was signed
   * @param _signature  Signature encoded as (bytes32 r, bytes32 s, uint8 v)
   */
  function recoverSigner(
    bytes32 _hash,
    bytes memory _signature
  ) internal pure returns (address signer) {
    require(_signature.length == 65, "SignatureValidator#recoverSigner: invalid signature length");

    // Variables are not scoped in Solidity.
    uint8 v = uint8(_signature[64]);
    bytes32 r = _signature.readBytes32(0);
    bytes32 s = _signature.readBytes32(32);

    // EIP-2 still allows signature malleability for ecrecover(). Remove this possibility and make the signature
    // unique. Appendix F in the Ethereum Yellow paper (https://ethereum.github.io/yellowpaper/paper.pdf), defines
    // the valid range for s in (281): 0 < s < secp256k1n ÷ 2 + 1, and for v in (282): v ∈ {27, 28}. Most
    // signatures from current libraries generate a unique signature with an s-value in the lower half order.
    //
    // If your library generates malleable signatures, such as s-values in the upper range, calculate a new s-value
    // with 0xFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFEBAAEDCE6AF48A03BBFD25E8CD0364141 - s1 and flip v from 27 to 28 or
    // vice versa. If your library also generates signatures with 0/1 for v instead 27/28, add 27 to v to accept
    // these malleable signatures as well.
    //
    // Source OpenZeppelin
    // https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/cryptography/ECDSA.sol

    if (uint256(s) > 0x7FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF5D576E7357A4501DDFE92F46681B20A0) {
      revert("SignatureValidator#recoverSigner: invalid signature 's' value");
    }

    if (v != 27 && v != 28) {
      revert("SignatureValidator#recoverSigner: invalid signature 'v' value");
    }

    // Recover ECDSA signer
    signer = ecrecover(_hash, v, r, s);
    
    // Prevent signer from being 0x0
    require(
      signer != address(0x0),
      "SignatureValidator#recoverSigner: INVALID_SIGNER"
    );

    return signer;
  }

Example implementation of a contract calling the isValidSignature() function on an external signing contract ;

  function callERC1271isValidSignature(
    address _addr,
    bytes32 _hash,
    bytes calldata _signature
  ) external view {
    bytes4 result = IERC1271Wallet(_addr).isValidSignature(_hash, _signature);
    require(result == 0x1626ba7e, "INVALID_SIGNATURE");
  }

Security Considerations

Since there are no gas-limit expected for calling the isValidSignature() function, it is possible that some implementation will consume a large amount of gas. It is therefore important to not hardcode an amount of gas sent when calling this method on an external contract as it could prevent the validation of certain signatures.

Note also that each contract implementing this method is responsible to ensure that the signature passed is indeed valid, otherwise catastrophic outcomes are to be expected.

7.9 KiB Raw Blame History