Skip to content

Update EIP-6690: add security considerations section to EIP-6690#11000

Closed
endorina wants to merge 2 commits intoethereum:masterfrom
endorina:fix/eip-6690-security-considerations
Closed

Update EIP-6690: add security considerations section to EIP-6690#11000
endorina wants to merge 2 commits intoethereum:masterfrom
endorina:fix/eip-6690-security-considerations

Conversation

@endorina
Copy link

@endorina endorina commented Jan 1, 2026

Filled in the empty Security Considerations section. Covers constant-time ops, side-channel protection, input validation, and DoS limits. Required by EIP-1.

@endorina endorina requested a review from eth-bot as a code owner January 1, 2026 16:47
@github-actions github-actions bot added c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-stagnant This EIP is Stagnant t-core labels Jan 1, 2026
@eth-bot
Copy link
Collaborator

eth-bot commented Jan 1, 2026

File EIPS/eip-6690.md

Requires 1 more reviewers from @axic, @chfast, @jwasinger, @rodiazet, @vbuterin
Requires 1 more reviewers from @g11tech, @jochem-brouwer, @lightclient, @SamWilsn

@eth-bot eth-bot added the a-review Waiting on author to review label Jan 1, 2026
@eth-bot eth-bot changed the title fix: add security considerations section to EIP-6690 Update EIP-6690: add security considerations section to EIP-6690 Jan 1, 2026
Copy link
Contributor

@jwasinger jwasinger left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This appears to be an AI-generated PR. None of the raised points are valid:

  • the EIP already notes that constant-time implementations of the arithmetic are required.
  • side-channel attacks are irrelevant: the execution occurs publicly on-chain, so the inputs to all operations are known.
  • interaction between virtual register space and EVM memory along with input parameter validation are extensively specified.

@endorina
Copy link
Author

endorina commented Jan 5, 2026

@jwasinger yes it was ai generated on purpose, for the sake of ai to analyze the codebase and made the proper assumptions and impleement it in "security considerations" section. but now i've simplified it and hope to hear what do you think now

thanks for the review!

@pddiffer053-alt
Copy link

Copy link
Contributor

@g11tech g11tech left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

need author to approve

@jwasinger
Copy link
Contributor

it should be closed.

@g11tech
Copy link
Contributor

g11tech commented Jan 20, 2026

closing based on author's feedback

@g11tech g11tech closed this Jan 20, 2026
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

a-review Waiting on author to review c-update Modifies an existing proposal s-stagnant This EIP is Stagnant t-core

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

6 participants

Comments