Filtered by vendor Bitcoin
Subscribe
Total
36 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2010-5138 | 1 Bitcoin | 2 Bitcoin Core, Wxbitcoin | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| wxBitcoin and bitcoind 0.3.x allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (electricity consumption) via a Bitcoin transaction containing multiple OP_CHECKSIG script opcodes. | |||||
| CVE-2012-2459 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Unspecified vulnerability in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt before 0.4.6, 0.5.x before 0.5.5, 0.6.0.x before 0.6.0.7, and 0.6.x before 0.6.2 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (block-processing outage and incorrect block count) via unknown behavior on a Bitcoin network. | |||||
| CVE-2012-1909 | 1 Bitcoin | 2 Bitcoin Core, Wxbitcoin | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The Bitcoin protocol, as used in bitcoind before 0.4.4, wxBitcoin, Bitcoin-Qt, and other programs, does not properly handle multiple transactions with the same identifier, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (unspendable transaction) by leveraging the ability to create a duplicate coinbase transaction. | |||||
| CVE-2011-4447 | 1 Bitcoin | 2 Bitcoin Core, Wxbitcoin | 2020-03-18 | 4.3 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The "encrypt wallet" feature in wxBitcoin and bitcoind 0.4.x before 0.4.1, and 0.5.0rc, does not properly interact with the deletion functionality of BSDDB, which allows context-dependent attackers to obtain unencrypted private keys from Bitcoin wallet files by bypassing the BSDDB interface and reading entries that are marked for deletion. | |||||
| CVE-2010-5141 | 1 Bitcoin | 2 Bitcoin Core, Wxbitcoin | 2020-03-18 | 7.5 HIGH | N/A |
| wxBitcoin and bitcoind before 0.3.5 do not properly handle script opcodes in Bitcoin transactions, which allows remote attackers to spend bitcoins owned by other users via unspecified vectors. | |||||
| CVE-2010-5140 | 1 Bitcoin | 2 Bitcoin Core, Wxbitcoin | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| wxBitcoin and bitcoind before 0.3.13 do not properly handle bitcoins associated with Bitcoin transactions that have zero confirmations, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (invalid-transaction flood) by sending low-valued transactions without transaction fees. | |||||
| CVE-2010-5137 | 1 Bitcoin | 2 Bitcoin Core, Wxbitcoin | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| wxBitcoin and bitcoind before 0.3.5 allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (daemon crash) via a Bitcoin transaction containing an OP_LSHIFT script opcode. | |||||
| CVE-2010-5139 | 1 Bitcoin | 2 Bitcoin Core, Wxbitcoin | 2020-03-18 | 7.5 HIGH | N/A |
| Integer overflow in wxBitcoin and bitcoind before 0.3.11 allows remote attackers to bypass intended economic restrictions and create many bitcoins via a crafted Bitcoin transaction. | |||||
| CVE-2012-1910 | 2 Bitcoin, Microsoft | 3 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Windows | 2020-03-18 | 7.5 HIGH | N/A |
| Bitcoin-Qt 0.5.0.x before 0.5.0.5; 0.5.1.x, 0.5.2.x, and 0.5.3.x before 0.5.3.1; and 0.6.x before 0.6.0rc4 on Windows does not use MinGW multithread-safe exception handling, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (application crash) or possibly execute arbitrary code via crafted Bitcoin protocol messages. | |||||
| CVE-2013-5700 | 1 Bitcoin | 2 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The Bloom Filter implementation in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.x before 0.8.4rc1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (divide-by-zero error and daemon crash) via a crafted sequence of messages. | |||||
| CVE-2016-10724 | 1 Bitcoin | 3 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoind | 2020-03-18 | 7.8 HIGH | 7.5 HIGH |
| Bitcoin Core before v0.13.0 allows denial of service (memory exhaustion) triggered by the remote network alert system (deprecated since Q1 2016) if an attacker can sign a message with a certain private key that had been known by unintended actors, because of an infinitely sized map. This affects other uses of the codebase, such as Bitcoin Knots before v0.13.0.knots20160814 and many altcoins. | |||||
| CVE-2016-10725 | 1 Bitcoin | 3 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoind | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| In Bitcoin Core before v0.13.0, a non-final alert is able to block the special "final alert" (which is supposed to override all other alerts) because operations occur in the wrong order. This behavior occurs in the remote network alert system (deprecated since Q1 2016). This affects other uses of the codebase, such as Bitcoin Knots before v0.13.0.knots20160814 and many altcoins. | |||||
| CVE-2015-3641 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.10.2 allow attackers to cause a denial of service (disabled functionality such as a client application crash) via an "Easy" attack. | |||||
| CVE-2017-18350 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 4.3 MEDIUM | 5.9 MEDIUM |
| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt prior to 0.15.1 have a stack-based buffer overflow if an attacker-controlled SOCKS proxy server is used. This results from an integer signedness error when the proxy server responds with an acknowledgement of an unexpected target domain name. | |||||
| CVE-2018-20587 | 2 Bitcoin, Bitcoinknots | 2 Bitcoin Core, Bitcoin Knots | 2019-10-02 | 2.1 LOW | 5.5 MEDIUM |
| Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 through 0.17.1 and Bitcoin Knots 0.12.0 through 0.17.x before 0.17.1.knots20181229 have Incorrect Access Control. Local users can exploit this to steal currency by binding the RPC IPv4 localhost port, and forwarding requests to the IPv6 localhost port. | |||||
| CVE-2017-9230 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin | 2018-06-13 | 5.0 MEDIUM | 7.5 HIGH |
| ** DISPUTED ** The Bitcoin Proof-of-Work algorithm does not consider a certain attack methodology related to 80-byte block headers with a variety of initial 64-byte chunks followed by the same 16-byte chunk, multiple candidate root values ending with the same 4 bytes, and calculations involving sqrt numbers. This violates the security assumptions of (1) the choice of input, outside of the dedicated nonce area, fed into the Proof-of-Work function should not change its difficulty to evaluate and (2) every Proof-of-Work function execution should be independent. NOTE: a number of persons feel that this methodology is a benign mining optimization, not a vulnerability. | |||||