Wrong signature on Electrum

[Abdussamad]

note there is no standard for signing messages with bc1 addresses so if you use electrum to generate the signature the challenger also has to use electrum to verify it.

If I remove or change any symbol in the message it gets signed correctly with no problem. But the original message still has an issue.

Can you tell us what version of the electrum you currently use?
This is an old issue of old electrum version lower than 3.3.4 if you can use the latest version of Electrum I tried the message you are trying to sign and verify.
It's all fine to me so maybe you are using old version of Electrum that is why you are having an issue with verifying a signed message.

Yes this is probably it: https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/pull/5210

[1714771685]

1714771685

[1714771685]

1714771685

[1714771685]

1714771685

[1714771685]

1714771685

[1714771685]

1714771685

[1714771685]

1714771685

[BrewMaster]

why don't people read what was said in other comments before replying

the ONLY problem here is the encoding of the signature that when it generates r and s, r is 32 bytes, s is 31 bytes. it doesn't pad s so it ends up with a 64 (1+32+31) byte signature instead of 65 (1+32+(1+31)).

if you change that, the signature becomes valid. try the following and see for yourself:

Code:

IFkS40AxIuRGDN/vnjwavfV6R00h3MKArtDB7tpBbnqIADHOlkhiEJv8JuJTeyVW2Oo23jH9u8fFTqiOms4MM9k=

this is NOT a problem with Electrum, at least not the new versions. i DID test it with my own key and brute forced a signature with a smaller r or s and it DID generate the right signature encoding.

3. the signature I get: IFkS40AxIuRGDN/vnjwavfV6R00h3MKArtDB7tpBbnqIMc6WSGIQm/wm4lN7JVbY6jbeMf27x8VOqI6azgwz2Q==

your signature length is invalid, it should have been 65 bytes but what you posted here is only 64 bytes which means it is missing 1 byte.

this should not have happened, i can't see any bugs that could lead to this either. are you sure that you have not modified the signature yourself?

[Lucius]

What version of Electrum you currently using?

I use the latest version of Electrum 3.3.8 downloaded from https://electrum.org/

Can you tell us what version of the electrum you currently use?

Can you tell us why are you repeating the same question on which you already got the answer? The OP clearly states that he is using the latest version of the Electrum downloaded from the official website. The problem, in this case, is not the fake version or version 3.3.4.

BrewMaster has obviously found the problem, maybe it just needs to be explained more simply to OP so he can change what need to be changed.

[naska21]

why don't people read what was said in other comments before replying

the ONLY problem here is the encoding of the signature that when it generates r and s, r is 32 bytes, s is 31 bytes. it doesn't pad s so it ends up with a 64 (1+32+31) byte signature instead of 65 (1+32+(1+31)).

if you change that, the signature becomes valid. try the following and see for yourself:

Code:

IFkS40AxIuRGDN/vnjwavfV6R00h3MKArtDB7tpBbnqIADHOlkhiEJv8JuJTeyVW2Oo23jH9u8fFTqiOms4MM9k=

this is NOT a problem with Electrum, at least not the new versions. i DID test it with my own key and brute forced a signature with a smaller r or s and it DID generate the right signature encoding.

3. the signature I get: IFkS40AxIuRGDN/vnjwavfV6R00h3MKArtDB7tpBbnqIMc6WSGIQm/wm4lN7JVbY6jbeMf27x8VOqI6azgwz2Q==

your signature length is invalid, it should have been 65 bytes but what you posted here is only 64 bytes which means it is missing 1 byte.

this should not have happened, i can't see any bugs that could lead to this either. are you sure that you have not modified the signature yourself?

Right, in fact I have said the same

.. might be some strange combination of characters that mislead Electrum's signer.  

but you are more specific and precise.