Today you can see the lightning nodes that ship fixes for novel attacks quickly (eclair and LDK, which did some force closures as a result of the fix) and those that don’t respond to security issues after months.
Discussion
This is a vague comment. Maybe worth adding a link to reference a thread again and specific actions so as not to give the appearance that implementations other than eclair and LDK are problematic
I can’t, cause others never shipped a fix so I shouldn’t disclose issues that aren’t mine.
what are the force closures defending against?
Id guess the fix is related to configurable options for fee management, particularly as relates to temporary high fee environments like we just experienced during that blip.
Affected nodes going through a force closure on a channel would have paid dearly in fees, vs eclair which allows more configured control to avoid ramping up fees willing to pay for high priority.
A channel partner could potentially exploit this if they had something to gain, or just a grief attack.