Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures

From Bitcoin Wiki
Revision as of 02:46, 21 October 2020 by Luke-jr (talk | contribs) (This list uses the original announcement date, not full disclosure date)
Jump to navigation Jump to search
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 66%
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 62%
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 73%
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 76%
  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
  2. ↑ 2.0 2.1 This is a protocol "hard-fork" that old clients will reject as invalid and must therefore not be used.
  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 Attacker can disable some functionality, for example by crashing clients
  4. ↑ Attacker can take coins outside known network rules
  5. ↑ 5.0 5.1 Attacker can create coins outside known network rules
  6. ↑ 6.0 6.1 6.2 Attacker can access user data outside known acceptable methods
  7. ↑ 7.0 7.1 Extent of possible abuse is unknown
  8. ↑ 8.0 8.1 8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6 8.7 Attacker can double-spend with 1 confirmation
  9. ↑ 9.0 9.1 9.2 9.3 9.4 9.5 9.6 9.7 9.8 Attacking requires mining block(s)
  10. ↑ 10.0 10.1 Local attacker could potentially determine the RPC passphrase via a timing sidechannel.
  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)


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


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


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


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

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

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

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-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-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

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

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

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

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].

See Also

References

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


Bitcoin Core documentation
User documentation
Developer documentation
History & theory
Retrieved from "https://en.bitcoin.it/w/index.php?title=Common_Vulnerabilities_and_Exposures&oldid=68239"