> For the complete documentation index, see [llms.txt](https://reports.immunefi.com/llms.txt). Markdown versions of documentation pages are available by appending `.md` to page URLs; this page is available as [Markdown](https://reports.immunefi.com/zano-iop/41027-bc-insight-breaking-asset-surjection-proof-assumptions.md).

# #41027 \[BC-Insight] Breaking asset surjection proof assumptions

**Submitted on Mar 9th 2025 at 17:58:59 UTC by @Blockian for** [**IOP | Zano**](https://immunefi.com/audit-competition/iop-zano)

* **Report ID:** #41027
* **Report Type:** Blockchain/DLT
* **Report severity:** Insight
* **Target:** <https://github.com/immunefi-team/zano-iop/tree/main/src/currency\\_core/currency\\_format\\_utils.cpp>
* **Impacts:**
  * Cryptographic inconsistency

## Description

Note:\
I'm relying on two checks in you code base:

* `static const size_t N_max = 256;` (src/crypto/one\_out\_of\_many\_proofs.cpp:23)
* `static_assert(CURRENCY_TX_MAX_ALLOWED_INPUTS <= N_max, "CURRENCY_TX_MAX_ALLOWED_INPUTS is inconsistent with one-out-of-many proof limits");` (src/crypto/one\_out\_of\_many\_proofs.cpp:26)
* `CHECK_AND_FAIL_WITH_ERROR_IF_FALSE(N <= N_max, 3);` (src/crypto/one\_out\_of\_many\_proofs.cpp:79)\
  They state that the aggregated surjection proof can only work up to 256 inputs.

**I don't know if by having more inputs than that the proof can be bypassed, or if it only breaks it so that it won't work at all**

## Impact

The impact is that `one out of many` `verify_BGE_proof` (used for aggregated asset surjection) can be called with a ring size that is larger than `256` which is the maximum that is consistent with the one-out-of-many proof (as per this comment: `src/crypto/one_out_of_many_proofs.cpp:23`)

## Root Cause

The root cause is that the number of inputs isn't validated anywhere.

## Deep Dive

* Can search `vin.size()` and `CURRENCY_TX_MAX_ALLOWED_INPUTS` accross the codebase to validate

## Suggested Fix

Validate `tx.vin.size()`

## Severity

As stated, I don't know.\
If this does nothing to the proof and the comment is wrong, than it's only an insight.\
If this breaks the proof, than it's dependent on what breaks. A critical if the checks can be completely bypassed in some instances, less otherwise.\
I'm not sure I have enough time to dive into this aggregation proof as I'm trying to cover as much code as possible.

## Proof of Concept

## Proof of Concept

Any transaction with more than 256 inputs.


---

# Agent Instructions
This documentation is published with GitBook. GitBook is the documentation platform designed so that both humans and AI agents can read, navigate, and reason over technical content effectively. Learn more at gitbook.com.

## Querying This Documentation
If you need additional information that is not directly available in this page, you can query the documentation dynamically by asking a question.

Perform an HTTP GET request on the current page URL with the `ask` query parameter, and the optional `goal` query parameter:

```
GET https://reports.immunefi.com/zano-iop/41027-bc-insight-breaking-asset-surjection-proof-assumptions.md?ask=<question>&goal=<endgoal>
```

`ask` is the immediate question: it should be specific, self-contained, and written in natural language.
`goal` is optional and describes the broader end goal you are ultimately trying to accomplish on behalf of the user. GitBook uses it to tailor the answer towards what is most useful for that goal.

The response will contain a direct answer to the question and relevant excerpts and sources from the documentation.

Use this mechanism when the answer is not explicitly present in the current page, you need clarification or additional context, or you want to retrieve related documentation sections.