Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:14, 1 May 2024

CVE	Announced	Affects	Severity	Attack is...	Flaw	Net
Pre-BIP protocol changes	n/a	All Bitcoin clients	Netsplit^[1]	Implicit^[2]	Various hardforks and softforks	100%
CVE-2010-5137	2010-07-28	wxBitcoin and bitcoind	DoS^[3]	Easy	OP_LSHIFT crash	100%
CVE-2010-5141	2010-07-28	wxBitcoin and bitcoind	Theft^[4]	Easy	OP_RETURN could be used to spend any output.	100%
CVE-2010-5138	2010-07-29	wxBitcoin and bitcoind	DoS^[3]	Easy	Unlimited SigOp DoS	100%
CVE-2010-5139	2010-08-15	wxBitcoin and bitcoind	Inflation^[5]	Easy	Combined output overflow	100%
CVE-2010-5140	2010-09-29	wxBitcoin and bitcoind	DoS^[3]	Easy	Never confirming transactions	100%
CVE-2011-4447	2011-11-11	wxBitcoin and bitcoind	Exposure^[6]	Hard	Wallet non-encryption	100%
CVE-2012-1909	2012-03-07	Bitcoin protocol and all clients	Netsplit^[1]	Very hard	Transaction overwriting	100%
CVE-2012-1910	2012-03-17	bitcoind & Bitcoin-Qt for Windows	Unknown^[7]	Hard	Non-thread safe MingW exceptions	100%
BIP 0016	2012-04-01	All Bitcoin clients	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Softfork: P2SH	100%
CVE-2012-2459	2012-05-14	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	Netsplit^[1]	Easy	Block hash collision (via merkle root)	100%
CVE-2012-3789	2012-06-20	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	DoS^[3]	Easy	(Lack of) orphan txn resource limits	100%
CVE-2012-4682		bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	DoS^[3]			100%
CVE-2012-4683	2012-08-23	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	DoS^[3]	Easy	Targeted DoS by CPU exhaustion using alerts	100%
CVE-2012-4684	2012-08-24	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	DoS^[3]	Easy	Network-wide DoS using malleable signatures in alerts	100%
CVE-2013-2272	2013-01-11	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	Exposure^[6]	Easy	Remote discovery of node's wallet addresses	99.99%
CVE-2013-2273	2013-01-30	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	Exposure^[6]	Easy	Predictable change output	99.99%
CVE-2013-2292	2013-01-30	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	DoS^[3]	Hard	A transaction that takes at least 3 minutes to verify	0%
CVE-2013-2293	2013-02-14	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	DoS^[3]	Easy	Continuous hard disk seek	99.99%
CVE-2013-3219	2013-03-11	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.0	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Unenforced block protocol rule	100%
CVE-2013-3220	2013-03-11	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	Netsplit^[1]	Hard	Inconsistent BDB lock limit interactions	99.99%
BIP 0034	2013-03-25	All Bitcoin clients	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Softfork: Height in coinbase	100%
BIP 0050	2013-05-15	All Bitcoin clients	Netsplit^[1]	Implicit^[2]	Hard fork to remove txid limit protocol rule	99.99%
CVE-2013-4627	2013-06-??	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	DoS^[3]	Easy	Memory exhaustion with excess tx message data	99%
CVE-2013-4165	2013-07-20	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt	Theft^[10]	Local	Timing leak in RPC authentication	99%
CVE-2013-5700	2013-09-04	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.x	DoS^[3]	Easy	Remote p2p crash via bloom filters	99%
CVE-2014-0160	2014-04-07	Anything using OpenSSL for TLS	Unknown^[7]	Easy	Remote memory leak via payment protocol	Unknown
CVE-2015-3641	2014-07-07	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.10.2	DoS^[3]	Easy	(Yet) Unspecified DoS	99.9%
BIP 66	2015-02-13	All Bitcoin clients	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Softfork: Strict DER signatures	99%
BIP 65	2015-11-12	All Bitcoin clients	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Softfork: OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY	99%
BIPs 68, 112 & 113	2016-04-11	All Bitcoin clients	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Softforks: Rel locktime, CSV & MTP locktime	99%
BIPs 141, 143 & 147	2016-10-27	All Bitcoin clients	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Softfork: Segwit	99%
CVE-2016-8889	2016-10-27	Bitcoin Knots GUI 0.11.0 - 0.13.0	Exposure	Hard	Debug console history storing sensitive info	100%
CVE-2017-9230	?	Bitcoin	?	?	ASICBoost	0%
BIP 148	2017-03-12	All Bitcoin clients	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Softfork: Segwit UASF	?
CVE-2017-12842	2018-06-09				No commitment to block merkle tree depth
CVE-2016-10724	2018-07-02	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.13.0	DoS^[3]	Keyholders^[11]	Alert memory exhaustion	99%
CVE-2016-10725	2018-07-02	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.13.0	DoS^[3]	Keyholders^[11]	Final alert cancellation	99%
CVE-2018-17144	2018-09-17	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.16.3	Inflation^[5]	Miners^[9]	Missing check for duplicate inputs	80%
CVE-2018-20587	2019-02-08	Bitcoin Knots prior to 0.17.1, and all current Bitcoin Core releases	Theft^[10]	Local	No alert for RPC service binding failure	<1%
CVE-2017-18350	2019-06-22	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.15.1	Unknown	Varies^[12]	Buffer overflow from SOCKS proxy	94%
CVE-2018-20586	2019-06-22	bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.17.1	Deception	RPC access	Debug log injection via unauthenticated RPC	77%
CVE-2019-12998	2019-08-30	c-lightning prior to 0.7.1	Theft	Easy	Missing check of channel funding UTXO
CVE-2019-12999	2019-08-30	lnd prior to 0.7	Theft	Easy	Missing check of channel funding UTXO amount
CVE-2019-13000	2019-08-30	eclair prior to 0.3	Theft	Easy	Missing check of channel funding UTXO
CVE-2020-14199	2020-06-03	Trezor and others	Theft	Social^[13]	Double-signing can enable unintended fees
CVE-2018-17145	2020-09-09	Bitcoin Core prior to 0.16.2 Bitcoin Knots prior to 0.16.1 Bcoin prior to 1.0.2 Btcd prior to 0.21.0	DoS^[3]	Easy	p2p memory blow-up	87%
CVE-2020-26895	2020-10-08	lnd prior to 0.10	Theft	Easy	Missing low-S normalization for HTLC signatures
CVE-2020-26896	2020-10-08	lnd prior to 0.11	Theft	Varies^[14]	Invoice preimage extraction via forwarded HTLC
CVE-2020-14198		Bitcoin Core 0.20.0	DoS^[3]	Easy	Remote DoS	93%
CVE-2021-3401	2021-02-01	Bitcoin Core GUI prior to 0.19.0 Bitcoin Knots GUI prior to 0.18.1	Theft	Hard	Qt5 remote execution	64%
CVE-2021-31876	2021-05-06	Various wallets
CVE-2021-41591	2021-10-04	Lightning software
CVE-2021-41592	2021-10-04	Lightning software
CVE-2021-41593	2021-10-04	Lightning software
BIPs 341-343	2021-11-13	All Bitcoin nodes	Fake Conf^[8]	Miners^[9]	Softfork: Taproot	57%
CVE-2022-31246	2022-06-07	Electrum 2.1 until before 4.2.2	Theft	Social
CVE-2023-50428	2023	All Bitcoin nodes	DoS^[3]	Easy	Bypass of datacarriersize limit using OP_FALSE,OP_IF
CVE-2024-34149	2024-03-30	Bitcoin Core 0.21.1 and newer (not fixed) Bitcoin Knots 0.21.1 - 0.23.0	DoS^[3]	Easy	Script size limit not enforced for Tapscript

↑ ^1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 ^1.4 Attacker can create multiple views of the network, enabling double-spending with over 1 confirmation
↑ ^2.0 ^2.1 This is a protocol "hard-fork" that old clients will reject as invalid and must therefore not be used.
↑ ^3.00 ^3.01 ^3.02 ^3.03 ^3.04 ^3.05 ^3.06 ^3.07 ^3.08 ^3.09 ^3.10 ^3.11 ^3.12 ^3.13 ^3.14 ^3.15 ^3.16 ^3.17 Attacker can disable some functionality, for example by crashing clients
↑ Attacker can take coins outside known network rules
↑ ^5.0 ^5.1 Attacker can create coins outside known network rules
↑ ^6.0 ^6.1 ^6.2 Attacker can access user data outside known acceptable methods
↑ ^7.0 ^7.1 Extent of possible abuse is unknown
↑ ^8.0 ^8.1 ^8.2 ^8.3 ^8.4 ^8.5 ^8.6 ^8.7 ^8.8 Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation
↑ ^9.00 ^9.01 ^9.02 ^9.03 ^9.04 ^9.05 ^9.06 ^9.07 ^9.08 ^9.09 Attacking requires mining block(s)
↑ ^10.0 ^10.1 Local attacker could potentially determine the RPC passphrase via a timing sidechannel.
↑ ^11.0 ^11.1 Attacking requires signing with the publicly-disclosed alert key
↑ Depends on software configuration
↑ User must be tricked into cooperating (social engineering)
↑ Depends on node configuration, only affects routable merchants, requires external knowledge of receiver's invoices and/or luck to identify receiver, only works against single-shot HTLCs (legacy or MPP)

CVE-2010-5137

Date: 2010-07-28
Summary: OP_LSHIFT crash
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
bitcoind wxBitcoin	* - 0.3.4	0.3.5

On July 28 2010, two bugs were discovered and demonstrated on the test network. One caused bitcoin to crash on some machines when processing a transaction containing an OP_LSHIFT. This was never exploited on the main network, and was fixed by Bitcoin version 0.3.5.

After these bugs were discovered, many currently-unused script words were disabled for safety.

References

US-CERT/NIST

CVE-2010-5141

Date: 2010-07-28
Summary: ?
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
bitcoind wxBitcoin	* - 0.3.4	0.3.5

On July 28 2010, two bugs were discovered and demonstrated on the test network. One exploited a bug in the transaction handling code and allowed an attacker to spend coins that they did not own. This was never exploited on the main network, and was fixed by Bitcoin version 0.3.5.

After these bugs were discovered, many currently-unused script words were disabled for safety.

References

US-CERT/NIST

CVE-2010-5138

Date: 2010-07-29
Summary: Unlimited SigOp DoS
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
bitcoind wxBitcoin	* - 0.3.?	0.3.?

On July 29 2010, it was discovered that block 71036 contained several transactions with a ton of OP_CHECKSIG commands. There should only ever be one such command. This caused every node to do extra unnecessary work, and it could have been used as a denial-of-service attack. A new version of Bitcoin was quickly released. The new version did not cause a fork on the main network, though it did cause one on the test network (where someone had played around with the attack more).

References

US-CERT/NIST

CVE-2010-5139

Main article: CVE-2010-5139

Date: 2010-08-15
Summary: Combined output overflow
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
bitcoind wxBitcoin	* - 0.3.10	0.3.11

On August 15 2010, it was discovered that block 74638 contained a transaction that created over 184 billion bitcoins for two different addresses. This was possible because the code used for checking transactions before including them in a block didn't account for the case of outputs so large that they overflowed when summed. A new version was published within a few hours of the discovery. The block chain had to be forked. Although many unpatched nodes continued to build on the "bad" block chain, the "good" block chain overtook it at a block height of 74691. The bad transaction no longer exists for people using the longest chain.

The block and transaction:

CBlock(hash=0000000000790ab3, ver=1, hashPrevBlock=0000000000606865, hashMerkleRoot=618eba,
nTime=1281891957, nBits=1c00800e, nNonce=28192719, vtx=2)
  CTransaction(hash=012cd8, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=1, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(000000, -1), coinbase 040e80001c028f00)
    CTxOut(nValue=50.51000000, scriptPubKey=0x4F4BA55D1580F8C3A8A2C7)
  CTransaction(hash=1d5e51, ver=1, vin.size=1, vout.size=2, nLockTime=0)
    CTxIn(COutPoint(237fe8, 0), scriptSig=0xA87C02384E1F184B79C6AC)
    CTxOut(nValue=92233720368.54275808, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0xB7A7)
    CTxOut(nValue=92233720368.54275808, scriptPubKey=OP_DUP OP_HASH160 0x1512)
  vMerkleTree: 012cd8 1d5e51 618eba

Block hash: 0000000000790ab3f22ec756ad43b6ab569abf0bddeb97c67a6f7b1470a7ec1c
Transaction hash: 1d5e512a9723cbef373b970eb52f1e9598ad67e7408077a82fdac194b65333c9

References

CVE-2010-5140

Date: 2010-09-29
Summary: Never confirming transactions
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
bitcoind wxBitcoin	* - 0.3.12	0.3.13

Around September 29, 2010, people started reporting that their sent transactions would not confirm. This happened because people modified Bitcoin to send sub-0.01 transactions without any fees. A 0.01 fee was at that time required by the network for such transactions (essentially prohibiting them), so the transactions remained at 0 confirmations forever. This became a more serious issue because Bitcoin would send transactions using bitcoins gotten from transactions with 0 confirmations, and these resulting transactions would also never confirm. Because Bitcoin tends to prefer sending smaller coins, these invalid transactions quickly multiplied, contaminating the wallets of everyone who received them.

Bitcoin was changed to only select coins with at least 1 confirmation. The remaining sub-0.01 transactions were cleared by generators who modified their version of Bitcoin to not require the micropayment fee. It took a while for everything to get cleared, though, because many of the intermediate transactions had been forgotten by the network by this point and had to be rebroadcast by the original senders.

References

CVE-2011-4447

Date: 2011-11-11
Summary: Wallet non-encryption
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
bitcoind wxBitcoin	0.4.0 - 0.4.1rc6	0.4.1 0.5.0

References

CVE-2012-1909

Date: 2012-03-07
Summary: Transaction overwriting
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin protocol	Before March 15th, 2012	BIP 30
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.4rc2 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.0.4rc2 0.5.1rc1 - 0.5.3rc2 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0rc2	0.4.4 0.5.0.4 0.5.3 0.6.0rc3
wxBitcoin	ALL	NONE

References

CVE-2012-1910

Date: 2012-03-17
Summary: Non-thread safe MingW exceptions
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
bitcoind for Windows Bitcoin-Qt for Windows	0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.0.4 0.5.1rc1 - 0.5.3.0 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0rc3	0.5.0.5 0.5.3.1 0.5.4 0.6.0rc4

References

BIP-0016

Date: 2012-04-01
Summary: Mandatory P2SH protocol update
Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.4 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.0.5 0.5.1rc1 - 0.5.3 0.6.0rc1	0.4.5 0.5.0.6 0.5.4rc1 0.6.0rc2
wxBitcoin	ALL	NONE

References

BIP 0016

CVE-2012-2459

Date: 2012-05-14
Summary: Block hash collision (via merkle tree)
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.6rc1 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.5rc1 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.7rc1 0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.1rc1	0.4.6 0.5.5 0.6.0.7 0.6.1rc2

Block hash collisions can easily be made by duplicating transactions in the merkle tree. Such a collision is invalid, but if recorded (as Bitcoin-Qt and bitcoind prior to 0.6.1 did) would prevent acceptance of the legitimate block with the same hash. This could be used to fork the blockchain, including deep double-spend attacks.

References

CVE-2012-3789

Main article: CVE-2012-3789

Date: 2012-06-20
Summary: (Lack of) orphan txn resource limits
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.7rc2 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.6rc2 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.8rc2 0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.2.2	0.4.7rc3 0.5.6rc3 0.6.0.9rc1 0.6.3rc1

References

CVE-2012-4682

Date: 
Summary: 
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.7rc2 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.6rc2 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.8rc2 0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.2.2	0.4.7rc3 0.5.6rc3 0.6.0.9rc1 0.6.3rc1

References

CVE-2012-4683

Main article: CVE-2012-4683

Date: 2012-08-23
Summary: Targeted DoS by CPU exhaustion using alerts
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.7rc2 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.6rc2 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.8rc2 0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.2.2	0.7.0

References

CVE-2012-4684

Main article: CVE-2012-4684

Date: 2012-08-24
Summary: Network-wide DoS using malleable signatures in alerts
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.7rc2 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.6rc2 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.8rc2 0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.2.2 - 0.6.3rc1	0.7.0

References

CVE-2013-2272

Date: 2013-01-11
Summary: Remote discovery of node's wallet addresses
Fix Deployment: 99.99%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.8rc4 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.7 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.10rc4 0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.4rc4 0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.2	0.4.9rc1 0.5.8rc1 0.6.0.11rc1 0.6.5rc1 0.7.3rc1

References

CVE-2013-2273

Date: 2013-01-30
Summary: Predictable change output
Fix Deployment: 99.99%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.8rc4 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.7 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.10rc4 0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.4rc4 0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.2	0.4.9rc1 0.5.8rc1 0.6.0.11rc1 0.6.5rc1 0.7.3rc1

References

Gentoo bug

CVE-2013-2292

Date: 2013-01-30
Summary: A transaction that takes at least 3 minutes to verify
Fix Deployment: 0%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	All versions	No fix yet

References

CVE-2013-2293

Main article: CVE-2013-2293

Date: 2013-02-14
Summary: Continuous hard disk seek
Fix Deployment: 99.99%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.7.3rc1	No fix yet (0.8.0 unaffected)

References

CVE-2013-3219

Date: 2013-03-11
Summary: Unenforced block protocol rule
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	0.8.0rc1 - 0.8.0	0.8.1

References

BIP 50

CVE-2013-3220

Date: 2013-03-11
Summary: Inconsistent BDB lock limit interactions
Fix Deployment: 99.99%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.9rc1 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.8rc1 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.5rc1 0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.3rc1	0.4.9rc2 0.5.8rc2 0.6.5rc2 0.7.3rc2
wxBitcoin	ALL	NONE

References

BIP 50

BIP-0034

Date: 2013-03-25
Summary: Mandatory block protocol update
Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.7 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.7 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.9 0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.3	0.4.8rc1 0.5.7rc1 0.6.0.10rc1 0.6.4rc1
wxBitcoin	ALL	NONE

References

BIP 0034

BIP-0050

Date: 2013-05-15
Summary: Hard fork to remove txid limit protocol rule
Deployment: 99.99%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.9rc1 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.8rc1 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.5rc1 0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.3rc1	0.4.9rc2 0.5.8rc2 0.6.5rc2 0.7.3rc2
wxBitcoin	ALL	NONE

References

BIP 0050

CVE-2013-4627

Date: 2013-06-??
Summary: Memory exhaustion with excess tx message data
Fix Deployment: 99.9%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.9rc3 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.8rc3 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.5rc3 0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.3rc3 0.8.0rc1 - 0.8.3	0.4.9rc4 0.5.8rc4 0.6.5rc4 0.7.3rc4 0.8.4
wxBitcoin	ALL	NONE

References

CVE-2013-4165

Date: 2013-07-20
Summary: Timing leak in RPC authentication
Fix Deployment: 99.9%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	* - 0.4.9rc3 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.8rc3 0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.5rc3 0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.3rc3 0.8.0rc1 - 0.8.3	0.4.9rc4 0.5.8rc4 0.6.5rc4 0.7.3rc4 0.8.4rc1
wxBitcoin	ALL	NONE

References

CVE-2013-5700

Date: 2013-09-04
Summary: Remote p2p crash via bloom filters
Fix Deployment: 99.9%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	0.8.0rc1 - 0.8.3	0.8.4rc1

References

CVE-2016-8889

Date: 2016-10-27
Summary: Debug console history storing sensitive info
Fix Deployment: 100%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin Knots GUI	0.11.0 - 0.13.0	0.13.1

References

CVE-2017-12842

Date: 2018-06-09
Summary: No commitment to block merkle tree depth

References

CVE-2017-18350

Date: 2019-06-22
Summary: Buffer overflow from SOCKS proxy

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	0.7.0rc1 - 0.15.0	0.15.1rc1

References

Disclosure of details

CVE-2018-17144

Date: 2018-09-17
Summary: Missing check for duplicate inputs
Fix Deployment: 31%

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	0.14.0rc1 - 0.14.2 0.15.0rc1 - 0.15.1 0.16.0rc1 - 0.16.2	0.14.3 0.15.2 0.16.3

References

CVE-2018-20586

Date: 2019-06-22
Summary: Debug log injection via unauthenticated RPC

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin-Qt bitcoind	0.12.0rc1 - 0.17.0	0.17.1rc1

CVE-2020-14199

Date: 2020-06-03
Summary: Double-signing can enable unintended fees

Affected		Fix
Trezor One		1.9.1
Trezor Model T		2.3.1
???

References

Disclosure of details by Trezor team

CVE-2020-26895

Date: 2020-10-08
Summary: Missing low-S normalization for HTLC signatures.

Affected		Fix
lnd		0.10.0

References

CVE-2020-26896

Date: 2020-10-08
Summary: Invoice preimage extraction via forwarded HTLC.

Affected		Fix
lnd		0.11.0

References

CVE-2021-3401

Date: 2021-02-01
Summary: Qt5 remote execution

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin Core GUI		0.19.0
Bitcoin Knots GUI		0.18.1

CVE-2021-31876

Date: 2021-05-06

References

Full Disclosure: CVE-2021-31876 Defect in Bitcoin Core's bip125 logic

References

URI Argument Injection Vulnerability in Bitcoin Core 0.18 and Earlier

CVE-2023-50428

Date: 2023
Summary: Bypass of datacarriersize limit using OP_FALSE,OP_IF

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin Core	0.9 and later	NOT FIXED
Bitcoin Knots	0.9 - 23.0	25.1.knots20231115
btcd	?	NOT FIXED
libbitcoin	?	NOT FIXED

CVE-2024-34149

Date: 2024-03-30
Summary: Script size limit not enforced for Tapscript

Affected		Fix
Bitcoin Core	0.21.1 and later	NOT FIXED
Bitcoin Knots	0.21.1 - 23.0	25.1.knots20231115
btcd	?	?
libbitcoin	?	?

Definitions

A critical vulnerability is one that will have disastrous consequences if it is exploited. A serious vulnerability is one that will have serious consequences if it is exploited^[1].

References

↑ http://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88892.0

[Netsplit-1] 1.0 ^1.1 ^1.2 ^1.3 ^1.4 Attacker can create multiple views of the network, enabling double-spending with over 1 confirmation

[hardfork-2] 2.0 ^2.1 This is a protocol "hard-fork" that old clients will reject as invalid and must therefore not be used.

[DoS-3] 3.00 ^3.01 ^3.02 ^3.03 ^3.04 ^3.05 ^3.06 ^3.07 ^3.08 ^3.09 ^3.10 ^3.11 ^3.12 ^3.13 ^3.14 ^3.15 ^3.16 ^3.17 Attacker can disable some functionality, for example by crashing clients

[Theft-4] Attacker can take coins outside known network rules

[inflation-5] 5.0 ^5.1 Attacker can create coins outside known network rules

[Exposure-6] 6.0 ^6.1 ^6.2 Attacker can access user data outside known acceptable methods

[Unknown-7] 7.0 ^7.1 Extent of possible abuse is unknown

[FakeConf-8] 8.0 ^8.1 ^8.2 ^8.3 ^8.4 ^8.5 ^8.6 ^8.7 ^8.8 Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation

[MinerEasy-9] 9.00 ^9.01 ^9.02 ^9.03 ^9.04 ^9.05 ^9.06 ^9.07 ^9.08 ^9.09 Attacking requires mining block(s)

[theft-local-timing-10] 10.0 ^10.1 Local attacker could potentially determine the RPC passphrase via a timing sidechannel.

[KeyholderEasy-11] 11.0 ^11.1 Attacking requires signing with the publicly-disclosed alert key

[12] Depends on software configuration

[13] User must be tricked into cooperating (social engineering)

[14] Depends on node configuration, only affects routable merchants, requires external knowledge of receiver's invoices and/or luck to identify receiver, only works against single-shot HTLCs (legacy or MPP)

[15] ttp://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=88892.0

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[1]

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 {| class="wikitable"
-!style="width:14ex"| CVE
+!style="width:16ex"| CVE
 ! Announced !! Affects !! Severity !! Attack is... !! Flaw !! Net
+|-
+| Pre-BIP protocol changes
+| n/a
+| All Bitcoin clients
+|bgcolor=pink| Netsplit<ref name="Netsplit"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Implicit<ref name="hardfork">This is a protocol "hard-fork" that old clients will reject as invalid and must therefore not be used.</ref>
+| [[Consensus versions|Various hardforks and softforks]]
+|bgcolor=lime| 100%
 |-
 | [[#CVE-2010-5137|CVE-2010-5137]]
@@ Line 14: / Line 22: @@
 | 2010-07-28
 | wxBitcoin and bitcoind
-|bgcolor=pink| Theft<ref name="Theft">Attacker can take or create money outside known network rules</ref>
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft<ref name="Theft">Attacker can take coins outside known network rules</ref>
 |bgcolor=pink| Easy
-|
+| OP_RETURN could be used to spend any output.
 |bgcolor=lime| 100%
 |-
@@ Line 27: / Line 35: @@
 |bgcolor=lime| 100%
 |-
-| [[#CVE-2010-5139|CVE-2010-5139]]
+| '''[[CVE-2010-5139]]'''
 | 2010-08-15
 | wxBitcoin and bitcoind
-|bgcolor=pink| Theft<ref name="Theft"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Inflation<ref name="inflation">Attacker can create coins outside known network rules</ref>
 |bgcolor=pink| Easy
 | Combined output overflow
@@ Line 49: / Line 57: @@
 |bgcolor=lime| Hard
 | Wallet non-encryption
-|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2011-4447.html 96%]
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2011-4447.html 100%]
 |-
 | [[#CVE-2012-1909|CVE-2012-1909]]
@@ Line 57: / Line 65: @@
 |bgcolor=lime| Very hard
 | Transaction overwriting
-|bgcolor=yellow| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-1909.html 82%]
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-1909.html 100%]
 |-
 | [[#CVE-2012-1910|CVE-2012-1910]]
 | 2012-03-17
-| Bitcoin-Qt for Windows
+| bitcoind & Bitcoin-Qt for Windows
 |bgcolor=pink| Unknown<ref name="Unknown">Extent of possible abuse is unknown</ref>
 |bgcolor=lime| Hard
-| MingW non-multithreading
+| Non-thread safe MingW exceptions
-|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-1910.html 97%]
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-1910.html 100%]
 |-
 | [[#BIP-0016|BIP 0016]]
@@ Line 72: / Line 80: @@
 |bgcolor=yellow| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf">Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation</ref>
 |bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy">Attacking requires mining block(s)</ref>
-| Mandatory P2SH protocol update
+| Softfork: P2SH
-|bgcolor=yellow| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/BIP-0016.html 81%]
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/BIP-0016.html 100%]
 |-
 | [[#CVE-2012-2459|CVE-2012-2459]]
@@ Line 81: / Line 89: @@
 |bgcolor=pink| Easy
 | Block hash collision (via merkle root)
-|bgcolor=yellow| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-2459.html 79%]
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-2459.html 100%]
 <!--
 |-
@@ Line 93: / Line 101: @@
 -->
 |-
-| [[#CVE-2012-3789|CVE-2012-3789]]
+| '''[[CVE-2012-3789]]'''
 | 2012-06-20
 | bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
 |bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
-| TBD
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
-| TBD
+| (Lack of) orphan txn resource limits
-|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-3789 52%]
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20123789 100%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2012-4682|CVE-2012-4682]]
+|
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|
+|
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-4682.html 100%]
+|-
+| '''[[CVE-2012-4683]]'''
+| 2012-08-23
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+| bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+| bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Targeted DoS by CPU exhaustion using alerts
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/CVE-2012-4683.html 100%]
+|-
+| '''[[CVE-2012-4684]]'''
+| 2012-08-24
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+| bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+| bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Network-wide DoS using malleable signatures in alerts
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20124684 100%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2013-2272|CVE-2013-2272]]
+| 2013-01-11
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+|bgcolor=yellow| Exposure<ref name="Exposure"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Remote discovery of node's wallet addresses
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20132272 99.99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2013-2273|CVE-2013-2273]]
+| 2013-01-30
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+|bgcolor=lime| Exposure<ref name="Exposure"/>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Easy
+| Predictable change output
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20132273 99.99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2013-2292|CVE-2013-2292]]
+| 2013-01-30
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=lime| Hard
+| A transaction that takes at least 3 minutes to verify
+|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20132292 0%]
+|-
+| '''[[CVE-2013-2293]]'''
+| 2013-02-14
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Continuous hard disk seek
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20132293 99.99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2013-3219|CVE-2013-3219]]
+| 2013-03-11
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.0
+|bgcolor=pink| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf"/>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy"/>
+| Unenforced block protocol rule
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20133219 100%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2013-3220|CVE-2013-3220]]
+| 2013-03-11
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+|bgcolor=pink| Netsplit<ref name="Netsplit"/>
+|bgcolor=lime| Hard
+| Inconsistent BDB lock limit interactions
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20133220 99.99%]
 |-
 | [[#BIP-0034|BIP 0034]]
-| Future
+| 2013-03-25
+| All Bitcoin clients
+|bgcolor=yellow| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf"/>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy">Attacking requires mining block(s)</ref>
+| Softfork: Height in coinbase
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/BIP-0034.html 100%]
+|-
+| [[#BIP-0050|BIP 0050]]
+| 2013-05-15
+| All Bitcoin clients
+|bgcolor=pink| Netsplit<ref name="Netsplit"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Implicit<ref name="hardfork">This is a protocol "hard-fork" that old clients will reject as invalid and must therefore not be used.</ref>
+| Hard fork to remove txid limit protocol rule
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?50 99.99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2013-4627|CVE-2013-4627]]
+| 2013-06-??
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Easy
+| Memory exhaustion with excess tx message data
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20134627 99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2013-4165|CVE-2013-4165]]
+| 2013-07-20
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft<ref name="theft-local-timing">Local attacker could potentially determine the RPC passphrase via a timing sidechannel.</ref>
+|bgcolor=lime| Local
+| Timing leak in RPC authentication
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20134165 99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2013-5700|CVE-2013-5700]]
+| 2013-09-04
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.x
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Remote p2p crash via bloom filters
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20135700 99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2014-0160|CVE-2014-0160]]
+| 2014-04-07
+| Anything using OpenSSL for TLS
+|bgcolor=pink| Unknown<ref name="Unknown"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Remote memory leak via payment protocol
+| Unknown
+|-
+| CVE-2015-3641
+| 2014-07-07
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.10.2
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| (Yet) Unspecified DoS
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20135700 99.9%]
+|-
+| BIP 66
+| 2015-02-13
+| All Bitcoin clients
+|bgcolor=yellow| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf">Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation</ref>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy">Attacking requires mining block(s)</ref>
+| Softfork: Strict DER signatures
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?66 99%]
+|-
+| BIP 65
+| 2015-11-12
 | All Bitcoin clients
 |bgcolor=yellow| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf">Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation</ref>
 |bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy">Attacking requires mining block(s)</ref>
-| Mandatory block protocol update
+| Softfork: OP_CHECKLOCKTIMEVERIFY
-|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/BIP-0034.html 0%]
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?65 99%]
+|-
+| BIPs 68, 112 & 113
+| 2016-04-11
+| All Bitcoin clients
+|bgcolor=yellow| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf">Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation</ref>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy">Attacking requires mining block(s)</ref>
+| Softforks: Rel locktime, CSV & MTP locktime
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?68 99%]
+|-
+| BIPs 141, 143 & 147
+| 2016-10-27
+| All Bitcoin clients
+|bgcolor=yellow| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf">Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation</ref>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy">Attacking requires mining block(s)</ref>
+| Softfork: Segwit
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?141 99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2016-8889|CVE-2016-8889]]
+| 2016-10-27
+| Bitcoin Knots GUI 0.11.0 - 0.13.0
+|bgcolor=yellow| Exposure
+|bgcolor=lime| Hard
+| Debug console history storing sensitive info
+|bgcolor=lime| 100%
+|-
+| CVE-2017-9230
+| ?
+| Bitcoin
+| ?
+| ?
+| ASICBoost
+|bgcolor=pink| 0%
+|-
+| BIP 148
+| 2017-03-12
+| All Bitcoin clients
+|bgcolor=yellow| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf">Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation</ref>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy">Attacking requires mining block(s)</ref>
+| Softfork: Segwit UASF
+| ?
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2017-12842|CVE-2017-12842]]
+| 2018-06-09
+|
+|
+|
+| No commitment to block merkle tree depth
+|
+|-
+| [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-July/016189.html CVE-2016-10724]
+| 2018-07-02
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.13.0
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Keyholders<ref name="KeyholderEasy">Attacking requires signing with the publicly-disclosed alert key</ref>
+| Alert memory exhaustion
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?201610724 99%]
+|-
+| [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2018-July/016189.html CVE-2016-10725]
+| 2018-07-02
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.13.0
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Keyholders<ref name="KeyholderEasy">Attacking requires signing with the publicly-disclosed alert key</ref>
+| Final alert cancellation
+|bgcolor=lime| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?201610724 99%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2018-17144|CVE-2018-17144]]
+| 2018-09-17
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.16.3
+|bgcolor=pink| Inflation<ref name="inflation"/>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy"/>
+| Missing check for duplicate inputs
+|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?201817144 80%]
+|-
+| [https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/cve-2018-20587-advisory-and-full-disclosure-a3105551e78b CVE-2018-20587]
+| 2019-02-08
+| Bitcoin Knots prior to 0.17.1, and all current Bitcoin Core releases
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft<ref name="theft-local-timing">Local attacker could potentially determine the RPC passphrase via a timing sidechannel.</ref>
+|bgcolor=lime| Local
+| No alert for RPC service binding failure
+|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?201820587 <1%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2017-18350|CVE-2017-18350]]
+| 2019-06-22
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.15.1
+|bgcolor=pink| Unknown
+|bgcolor=pink| Varies<ref>Depends on software configuration</ref>
+| Buffer overflow from SOCKS proxy
+|bgcolor=yellow| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?201718350 94%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2018-20586|CVE-2018-20586]]
+| 2019-06-22
+| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.17.1
+|bgcolor=lime| Deception
+|bgcolor=lime| RPC access
+| Debug log injection via unauthenticated RPC
+|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?201820586 77%]
+|-
+| [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-September/002174.html CVE-2019-12998]
+| 2019-08-30
+| c-lightning prior to 0.7.1
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Missing check of channel funding UTXO
+|-
+| [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-September/002174.html CVE-2019-12999]
+| 2019-08-30
+| lnd prior to 0.7
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Missing check of channel funding UTXO amount
+|-
+| [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2019-September/002174.html CVE-2019-13000]
+| 2019-08-30
+| eclair prior to 0.3
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Missing check of channel funding UTXO
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2020-14199|CVE-2020-14199]]
+| 2020-06-03
+| Trezor and others
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft
+|bgcolor=lime| Social<ref>User must be tricked into cooperating (social engineering)</ref>
+| Double-signing can enable unintended fees
+|-
+| [https://invdos.net/ CVE-2018-17145]
+| 2020-09-09
+| Bitcoin Core prior to 0.16.2<br>Bitcoin Knots prior to 0.16.1<br>Bcoin prior to 1.0.2<br>Btcd prior to 0.21.0
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| p2p memory blow-up
+|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?201817145 87%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2020-26895|CVE-2020-26895]]
+| 2020-10-08
+| lnd prior to 0.10
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Missing low-S normalization for HTLC signatures
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2020-26896|CVE-2020-26896]]
+| 2020-10-08
+| lnd prior to 0.11
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft
+|bgcolor=yellow | Varies<ref>Depends on node configuration, only affects routable merchants, requires external knowledge of receiver's invoices and/or luck to identify receiver, only works against single-shot HTLCs (legacy or MPP)</ref>
+| Invoice preimage extraction via forwarded HTLC
+|-
+| CVE-2020-14198
+|
+| Bitcoin Core 0.20.0
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Remote DoS
+|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?202014198 93%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2021-3401|CVE-2021-3401]]
+| 2021-02-01
+| Bitcoin Core GUI prior to 0.19.0<br>Bitcoin Knots GUI prior to 0.18.1
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft
+|bgcolor=lime| Hard
+| Qt5 remote execution
+|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?20213401 64%]
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2021-31876|CVE-2021-31876]]
+| 2021-05-06
+| Various wallets
+|
+|
+|
+|-
+| CVE-2021-41591
+| 2021-10-04
+| Lightning software
+|
+|
+|
+|-
+| CVE-2021-41592
+| 2021-10-04
+| Lightning software
+|
+|
+|
+|-
+| CVE-2021-41593
+| 2021-10-04
+| Lightning software
+|
+|
+|
+|-
+| BIPs 341-343
+| 2021-11-13
+| All Bitcoin nodes
+|bgcolor=yellow| Fake Conf<ref name="FakeConf">Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation</ref>
+|bgcolor=yellow| Miners<ref name="MinerEasy">Attacking requires mining block(s)</ref>
+| Softfork: Taproot
+|bgcolor=pink| [http://luke.dashjr.org/programs/bitcoin/files/charts/security.html?343 57%]
+|-
+| [https://github.com/spesmilo/electrum/security/advisories/GHSA-4fh4-hx35-r355 CVE-2022-31246]
+| 2022-06-07
+| Electrum 2.1 until before 4.2.2
+|bgcolor=pink| Theft
+|bgcolor=lime| Social
+|
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2023-50428|CVE-2023-50428]]
+| 2023
+| All Bitcoin nodes
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Bypass of datacarriersize limit using OP_FALSE,OP_IF
+|
+|-
+| [[#CVE-2024-34149|CVE-2024-34149]]
+| 2024-03-30
+| Bitcoin Core 0.21.1 and newer (not fixed)<br>Bitcoin Knots 0.21.1 - 0.23.0
+|bgcolor=yellow| DoS<ref name="DoS"/>
+|bgcolor=pink| Easy
+| Script size limit not enforced for Tapscript
+|
 |}
@@ Line 170: / Line 535: @@
 == CVE-2010-5139 ==
+{{main|CVE-2010-5139}}
   <b>Date:</b> 2010-08-15
   <b>Summary:</b> Combined output overflow
@@ Line 200: / Line 565: @@
 * [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=822.0 Discovery]
 * [http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139 US-CERT/NIST]
 == CVE-2010-5140 ==
@@ Line 213: / Line 577: @@
 |}
-Around September 29, 2010, people started [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1306.0 reporting] that their sent transactions would not confirm. This happened because people modified Bitcoin to send sub-0.01 transactions without any fees. A 0.01 fee was at that time required by the network for such transactions (essentially prohibiting them), so the transactions remained at 0 confirmations forever. This became a more serious issue because Bitcoin would send transactions using bitcoins gotten from transactions with 0 confirmations, and these resulting transactions would also never confirm. Because Bitcoin tends to prefer sending smaller coins, these invalid transactions quickly multiplied, contaminating the wallets of everyone who received them.
+Around September 29, 2010, people started [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306.0 reporting] that their sent transactions would not confirm. This happened because people modified Bitcoin to send sub-0.01 transactions without any fees. A 0.01 fee was at that time required by the network for such transactions (essentially prohibiting them), so the transactions remained at 0 confirmations forever. This became a more serious issue because Bitcoin would send transactions using bitcoins gotten from transactions with 0 confirmations, and these resulting transactions would also never confirm. Because Bitcoin tends to prefer sending smaller coins, these invalid transactions quickly multiplied, contaminating the wallets of everyone who received them.
 Bitcoin was changed to only select coins with at least 1 confirmation. The remaining sub-0.01 transactions were cleared by generators who modified their version of Bitcoin to not require the micropayment fee. It took a while for everything to get cleared, though, because many of the intermediate transactions had been forgotten by the network by this point and had to be rebroadcast by the original senders.
 === References ===
-* [http://www.bitcoin.org/smf/index.php?topic=1306.0 Initial reports]
+* [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=1306.0 Initial reports]
 * [http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5140 US-CERT/NIST]
@@ Line 226: / Line 590: @@
   <b>Date:</b> 2011-11-11
   <b>Summary:</b> Wallet non-encryption
-  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 96%
+  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
 {| class='wikitable'
 !colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
@@ Line 244: / Line 608: @@
   <b>Date:</b> 2012-03-07
   <b>Summary:</b> Transaction overwriting
-  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 82%
+  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
 {| class='wikitable'
 !colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
@@ Line 264: / Line 628: @@
   <b>Date:</b> 2012-03-17
-  <b>Summary:</b> MingW non-multithreading
+  <b>Summary:</b> Non-thread safe MingW exceptions
-  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 97%
+  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
 {| class='wikitable'
 !colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
 |-
-| Bitcoin-Qt for Windows || 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.0.4<br>0.5.1rc1 - 0.5.3.0<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0rc3 || 0.5.0.5<br>0.5.3.1<br>0.5.4<br>0.6.0rc4
+| bitcoind for Windows<br>Bitcoin-Qt for Windows || 0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.0.4<br>0.5.1rc1 - 0.5.3.0<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0rc3 || 0.5.0.5<br>0.5.3.1<br>0.5.4<br>0.6.0rc4
 |}
@@ Line 275: / Line 639: @@
 * [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=69120.0 Announcement]
 * [http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2012-1910 US-CERT/NIST]
+* [http://gavintech.blogspot.com/2012/03/full-disclosure-bitcoin-qt-on-windows.html Full disclosure]
 == BIP-0016 ==
@@ Line 280: / Line 645: @@
   <b>Date:</b> 2012-04-01
   <b>Summary:</b> Mandatory P2SH protocol update
-  <b>Deployment:</b> 81%
+  <b>Deployment:</b> 100%
 {| class='wikitable'
 !colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
@@ Line 296: / Line 661: @@
   <b>Date:</b> 2012-05-14
   <b>Summary:</b> Block hash collision (via merkle tree)
-  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 79%
+  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
 {| class='wikitable'
 !colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
@@ Line 314: / Line 679: @@
 == CVE-2012-3789 ==
+{{main|CVE-2012-3789}}
   <b>Date:</b> 2012-06-20
-  <b>Summary:</b> ''To Be Disclosed''
+  <b>Summary:</b> (Lack of) orphan txn resource limits
-  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 52%
+  <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
 {| class='wikitable'
 !colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
@@ Line 325: / Line 690: @@
 === References ===
+* [[CVE-2012-3789]]
 * [https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=88734 0.6.3rc1 Announcement]
 * [http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2012-3789 US-CERT/NIST]
+== CVE-2012-4682 ==
+ <b>Date:</b>
+ <b>Summary:</b>
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.7rc2<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.6rc2<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.8rc2<br>0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.2.2 || 0.4.7rc3<br>0.5.6rc3<br>0.6.0.9rc1<br>0.6.3rc1
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [[CVE-2012-4682]]
+* [https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435216 Gentoo bug]
+== CVE-2012-4683 ==
+{{main|CVE-2012-4683}}
+ <b>Date:</b> 2012-08-23
+ <b>Summary:</b> Targeted DoS by CPU exhaustion using alerts
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.7rc2<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.6rc2<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.8rc2<br>0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.2.2 || 0.7.0
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [[CVE-2012-4683]]
+* [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148038.0 Announcement]
+* [https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=435216 Gentoo bug]
+== CVE-2012-4684 ==
+{{main|CVE-2012-4684}}
+ <b>Date:</b> 2012-08-24
+ <b>Summary:</b> Network-wide DoS using malleable signatures in alerts
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.7rc2<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.6rc2<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.8rc2<br>0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.2.2 - 0.6.3rc1 || 0.7.0
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [[CVE-2012-4684]]
+* [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=148109.0 Announcement]
+== CVE-2013-2272 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-01-11
+ <b>Summary:</b> Remote discovery of node's wallet addresses
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 99.99%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.8rc4<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.7<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.10rc4<br>0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.4rc4<br>0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.2 || 0.4.9rc1<br>0.5.8rc1<br>0.6.0.11rc1<br>0.6.5rc1<br>0.7.3rc1
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=135856 Announcement]
+* [https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462046 Gentoo bug]
+== CVE-2013-2273 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-01-30
+ <b>Summary:</b> Predictable change output
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 99.99%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.8rc4<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.7<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.10rc4<br>0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.4rc4<br>0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.2 || 0.4.9rc1<br>0.5.8rc1<br>0.6.0.11rc1<br>0.6.5rc1<br>0.7.3rc1
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462046 Gentoo bug]
+== CVE-2013-2292 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-01-30
+ <b>Summary:</b> A transaction that takes at least 3 minutes to verify
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 0%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || All versions || No fix yet
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [[CVE-2013-2292]]
+* [https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=140078 Announcement]
+* [https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462046 Gentoo bug]
+== CVE-2013-2293 ==
+{{main|CVE-2013-2293}}
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-02-14
+ <b>Summary:</b> Continuous hard disk seek
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 99.99%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.7.3rc1 || No fix yet (0.8.0 unaffected)
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [[CVE-2013-2293]]
+* [https://bitcointalk.org/?topic=144122 Announcement]
+* [https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=462046 Gentoo bug]
+== CVE-2013-3219 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-03-11
+ <b>Summary:</b> Unenforced block protocol rule
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || 0.8.0rc1 - 0.8.0 || 0.8.1
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [[BIP 0050|BIP 50]]
+== CVE-2013-3220 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-03-11
+ <b>Summary:</b> Inconsistent BDB lock limit interactions
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 99.99%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.9rc1<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.8rc1<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.5rc1<br>0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.3rc1 || 0.4.9rc2<br>0.5.8rc2<br>0.6.5rc2<br>0.7.3rc2
+|-
+| wxBitcoin || ALL || NONE
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [[BIP 0050|BIP 50]]
 == BIP-0034 ==
-  <b>Date:</b> Future
+  <b>Date:</b> 2013-03-25
   <b>Summary:</b> Mandatory block protocol update
-  <b>Deployment:</b> 0%
+  <b>Deployment:</b> 100%
 {| class='wikitable'
 !colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
 |-
-| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.7<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.7<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.9<br>0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.3 || 0.4.8rc1<br>0.5.7rc1<br>0.6.0.10rc1<br>0.6.4rc1<br>0.7.0rc1
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.7<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.7<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.0.9<br>0.6.1rc1 - 0.6.3 || 0.4.8rc1<br>0.5.7rc1<br>0.6.0.10rc1<br>0.6.4rc1
 |-
 | wxBitcoin || ALL || NONE
@@ Line 344: / Line 850: @@
 * [[BIP 0034]]
+== BIP-0050 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-05-15
+ <b>Summary:</b> Hard fork to remove txid limit protocol rule
+ <b>Deployment:</b> 99.99%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.9rc1<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.8rc1<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.5rc1<br>0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.3rc1 || 0.4.9rc2<br>0.5.8rc2<br>0.6.5rc2<br>0.7.3rc2
+|-
+| wxBitcoin || ALL || NONE
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [[BIP 0050]]
+== CVE-2013-4627 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-06-??
+ <b>Summary:</b> Memory exhaustion with excess tx message data
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 99.9%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.9rc3<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.8rc3<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.5rc3<br>0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.3rc3<br>0.8.0rc1 - 0.8.3 || 0.4.9rc4<br>0.5.8rc4<br>0.6.5rc4<br>0.7.3rc4<br>0.8.4
+|-
+| wxBitcoin || ALL || NONE
+|}
+=== References ===
+== CVE-2013-4165 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-07-20
+ <b>Summary:</b> Timing leak in RPC authentication
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 99.9%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || * - 0.4.9rc3<br>0.5.0rc1 - 0.5.8rc3<br>0.6.0rc1 - 0.6.5rc3<br>0.7.0rc1 - 0.7.3rc3<br>0.8.0rc1 - 0.8.3 || 0.4.9rc4<br>0.5.8rc4<br>0.6.5rc4<br>0.7.3rc4<br>0.8.4rc1
+|-
+| wxBitcoin || ALL || NONE
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287351 Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.4 release notes]
+* [https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/issues/2838 The initial bug report]
+== CVE-2013-5700 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2013-09-04
+ <b>Summary:</b> Remote p2p crash via bloom filters
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 99.9%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || 0.8.0rc1 - 0.8.3 || 0.8.4rc1
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=287351 Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.4 release notes]
+* [https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/37c6389c5a0ca63ae3573440ecdfe95d28ad8f07 The fix]
+* [https://github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/pull/18515 An added test]
+== CVE-2016-8889 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2016-10-27
+ <b>Summary:</b> Debug console history storing sensitive info
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 100%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin Knots GUI || 0.11.0 - 0.13.0 || 0.13.1
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/v0.13.1.knots20161027/doc/release-notes.md Bitcoin Knots 0.16.1.knots20161027 release notes]
+* [https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2016-8889 US-CERT/NIST]
+== CVE-2017-12842 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2018-06-09
+ <b>Summary:</b> No commitment to block merkle tree depth
+=== References ===
+* [https://bitslog.wordpress.com/2018/06/09/leaf-node-weakness-in-bitcoin-merkle-tree-design/ Explanation by Sergio Demian Lerner]
+* [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2019-February/016697.html Further elaboration by Suhas Daftuar]
+== CVE-2017-18350 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2019-06-22
+ <b>Summary:</b> Buffer overflow from SOCKS proxy
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || 0.7.0rc1 - 0.15.0 || 0.15.1rc1
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://medium.com/@lukedashjr/cve-2017-18350-disclosure-fe6d695f45d5 Disclosure of details]
+== CVE-2018-17144 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2018-09-17
+ <b>Summary:</b> Missing check for duplicate inputs
+ <b>Fix Deployment:</b> 31%
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || 0.14.0rc1 - 0.14.2<br>0.15.0rc1 - 0.15.1<br>0.16.0rc1 - 0.16.2 || 0.14.3<br>0.15.2<br>0.16.3
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://bitcoincore.org/en/2018/09/20/notice/ Full disclosure by Bitcoin Core]
+* [https://bitcoincore.org/en/2018/09/18/release-0.16.3/ Bitcoin Core 0.16.3 release notes]
+* [https://github.com/bitcoinknots/bitcoin/blob/v0.16.3.knots20180918/doc/release-notes.md Bitcoin Knots 0.16.3.knots20180918 release notes]
+* [https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-17144 US-CERT/NIST]
+* [https://bugs.gentoo.org/show_bug.cgi?id=666669 Gentoo bug]
+== CVE-2018-20586 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2019-06-22
+ <b>Summary:</b> Debug log injection via unauthenticated RPC
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin-Qt<br>bitcoind || 0.12.0rc1 - 0.17.0 || 0.17.1rc1
+|}
+== CVE-2020-14199 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2020-06-03
+ <b>Summary:</b> Double-signing can enable unintended fees
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Trezor One ||  || 1.9.1
+|-
+| Trezor Model T ||  || 2.3.1
+|-
+| ???
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://blog.trezor.io/details-of-firmware-updates-for-trezor-one-version-1-9-1-and-trezor-model-t-version-2-3-1-1eba8f60f2dd Disclosure of details by Trezor team]
+== CVE-2020-26895 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2020-10-08
+ <b>Summary:</b> Missing low-S normalization for HTLC signatures.
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| lnd ||  || 0.10.0
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002858.html CVE-2020-26895: LND Low-S Tx-Relay Standardness]
+* [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002856.html Full Disclosure: Full Disclosure: CVE-2020-26895 LND "Hodl my Shitsig"]
+== CVE-2020-26896 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2020-10-08
+ <b>Summary:</b> Invoice preimage extraction via forwarded HTLC.
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| lnd ||  || 0.11.0
+|}
+=== References ===
+* [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002857.html CVE-2020-26896: LND Invoice Preimage Extraction]
+* [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002855.html Full Disclosure: CVE-2020-26896 LND "The (un)covert channel"]
+== CVE-2021-3401 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2021-02-01
+ <b>Summary:</b> Qt5 remote execution
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin Core GUI ||  || 0.19.0
+|-
+| Bitcoin Knots GUI ||  || 0.18.1
+|}
+== CVE-2021-31876 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2021-05-06
+=== References ===
+* [https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2021-May/018893.html Full Disclosure: CVE-2021-31876 Defect in Bitcoin Core's bip125 logic]
+=== References ===
+* [https://achow101.com/2021/02/0.18-uri-vuln URI Argument Injection Vulnerability in Bitcoin Core 0.18 and Earlier]
+== CVE-2023-50428 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2023
+ <b>Summary:</b> Bypass of datacarriersize limit using OP_FALSE,OP_IF
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin Core || 0.9 and later || NOT FIXED
+|-
+| Bitcoin Knots || 0.9 - 23.0 || 25.1.knots20231115
+|-
+| btcd || ? || NOT FIXED
+|-
+| libbitcoin || ? || NOT FIXED
+|}
+== CVE-2024-34149 ==
+ <b>Date:</b> 2024-03-30
+ <b>Summary:</b> Script size limit not enforced for Tapscript
+{| class='wikitable'
+!colspan='2'| Affected !! Fix
+|-
+| Bitcoin Core || 0.21.1 and later || NOT FIXED
+|-
+| Bitcoin Knots || 0.21.1 - 23.0 || 25.1.knots20231115
+|-
+| btcd || ? || ?
+|-
+| libbitcoin || ? || ?
+|}
 ==Definitions==
@@ Line 352: / Line 1,092: @@
 * [[Changelog]]
+* https://blog.bitmex.com/bitcoins-consensus-forks/
 ==References==
 <references />
+[[Category:Security]]
+{{Bitcoin Core documentation}}

Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 01:14, 1 May 2024

CVE-2010-5137

References

CVE-2010-5141

References

CVE-2010-5138

References

CVE-2010-5139

References

CVE-2010-5140

References

CVE-2011-4447

References

CVE-2012-1909

References

CVE-2012-1910

References

BIP-0016

References

CVE-2012-2459

References

CVE-2012-3789

References

CVE-2012-4682

References

CVE-2012-4683

References

CVE-2012-4684

References

CVE-2013-2272

References

CVE-2013-2273

References

CVE-2013-2292

References

CVE-2013-2293

References

CVE-2013-3219

References

CVE-2013-3220

References

BIP-0034

References

BIP-0050

References

CVE-2013-4627

References

CVE-2013-4165

References

CVE-2013-5700

References

CVE-2016-8889

References

CVE-2017-12842

References

CVE-2017-18350

References

CVE-2018-17144

References

CVE-2018-20586

CVE-2020-14199

References

CVE-2020-26895

References

CVE-2020-26896

References

CVE-2021-3401

CVE-2021-31876

References

References

CVE-2023-50428

CVE-2024-34149

Definitions

See Also

References

Navigation menu

Search