cnvd - cnvd-2017-33803

cnvd-2017-33803

Vulnerability from cnvd

Title: BIP proposal安全绕过漏洞

Description:

BIP proposal是一套比特币验证算法。

BIP proposal中的‘Bitcoin proof of work’函数存在安全绕过漏洞。远程攻击者可利用该漏洞绕过安全限制，执行未授权的操作。

Severity: 中

Formal description:

厂商尚未提供漏洞修复方案，请关注厂商主页及时更新： https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page

Reference: https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00575.pdf https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html

Impacted products

Name
Bitcoin bitcoin

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "cves": {
    "cve": {
      "cveNumber": "CVE-2017-9230"
    }
  },
  "description": "BIP proposal\u662f\u4e00\u5957\u6bd4\u7279\u5e01\u9a8c\u8bc1\u7b97\u6cd5\u3002\r\n\r\nBIP proposal\u4e2d\u7684\u2018Bitcoin proof of work\u2019\u51fd\u6570\u5b58\u5728\u5b89\u5168\u7ed5\u8fc7\u6f0f\u6d1e\u3002\u8fdc\u7a0b\u653b\u51fb\u8005\u53ef\u5229\u7528\u8be5\u6f0f\u6d1e\u7ed5\u8fc7\u5b89\u5168\u9650\u5236\uff0c\u6267\u884c\u672a\u6388\u6743\u7684\u64cd\u4f5c\u3002",
  "discovererName": "Timo Hanke and Sergio Demian Lerner",
  "formalWay": "\u5382\u5546\u5c1a\u672a\u63d0\u4f9b\u6f0f\u6d1e\u4fee\u590d\u65b9\u6848\uff0c\u8bf7\u5173\u6ce8\u5382\u5546\u4e3b\u9875\u53ca\u65f6\u66f4\u65b0\uff1a\r\nhttps://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/Main_Page",
  "isEvent": "\u901a\u7528\u8f6f\u786c\u4ef6\u6f0f\u6d1e",
  "number": "CNVD-2017-33803",
  "openTime": "2017-11-14",
  "products": {
    "product": "Bitcoin bitcoin"
  },
  "referenceLink": "https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00575.pdf\r\nhttps://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html",
  "serverity": "\u4e2d",
  "submitTime": "2017-11-13",
  "title": "BIP proposal\u5b89\u5168\u7ed5\u8fc7\u6f0f\u6d1e"
}

CVE-2017-9230 (GCVE-0-2017-9230)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5

Published

2017-05-24 16:00

Modified

2024-08-05 17:02

Severity ?

7.5 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N

CWE

Summary

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

References

▼	URL	Tags
	https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00575.pdf	x_refsource_MISC
	https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html	x_refsource_MISC
	https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014351.html	x_refsource_MISC
	http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98657	vdb-entry, x_refsource_BID
	https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014352.html	x_refsource_MISC
	https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014349.html	x_refsource_MISC
	http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf	x_refsource_MISC

Impacted products

	Vendor	Product	Version
	n/a	n/a	Version: n/a

Show details on NVD website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "affected": [
          {
            "cpes": [
              "cpe:2.3:a:bitcoin:bitcoin:-:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
            ],
            "defaultStatus": "unknown",
            "product": "bitcoin",
            "vendor": "bitcoin",
            "versions": [
              {
                "status": "affected",
                "version": "-"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "metrics": [
          {
            "cvssV3_1": {
              "attackComplexity": "LOW",
              "attackVector": "NETWORK",
              "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
              "baseScore": 7.5,
              "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
              "confidentialityImpact": "HIGH",
              "integrityImpact": "NONE",
              "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
              "scope": "UNCHANGED",
              "userInteraction": "NONE",
              "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:N/A:N",
              "version": "3.1"
            }
          },
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2017-9230",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "yes"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2024-04-23T15:55:28.785269Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "problemTypes": [
          {
            "descriptions": [
              {
                "cweId": "CWE-338",
                "description": "CWE-338 Use of Cryptographically Weak Pseudo-Random Number Generator (PRNG)",
                "lang": "en",
                "type": "CWE"
              }
            ]
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-06-04T17:11:52.036Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      },
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-08-05T17:02:43.380Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00575.pdf"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014351.html"
          },
          {
            "name": "98657",
            "tags": [
              "vdb-entry",
              "x_refsource_BID",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98657"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014352.html"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014349.html"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "n/a",
          "vendor": "n/a",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2017-05-24T00:00:00",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "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"
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "description": "n/a",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "text"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2018-06-13T17:57:01",
        "orgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
        "shortName": "mitre"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00575.pdf"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014351.html"
        },
        {
          "name": "98657",
          "tags": [
            "vdb-entry",
            "x_refsource_BID"
          ],
          "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98657"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014352.html"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014349.html"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf"
        }
      ],
      "tags": [
        "disputed"
      ],
      "x_legacyV4Record": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2017-9230",
          "STATE": "PUBLIC"
        },
        "affects": {
          "vendor": {
            "vendor_data": [
              {
                "product": {
                  "product_data": [
                    {
                      "product_name": "n/a",
                      "version": {
                        "version_data": [
                          {
                            "version_value": "n/a"
                          }
                        ]
                      }
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "vendor_name": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "eng",
              "value": "** 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."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "eng",
                  "value": "n/a"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00575.pdf",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/1604/1604.00575.pdf"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-April/013996.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014351.html",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014351.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "98657",
              "refsource": "BID",
              "url": "http://www.securityfocus.com/bid/98657"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014352.html",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014352.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014349.html",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/bitcoin-dev/2017-May/014349.html"
            },
            {
              "name": "http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "http://www.mit.edu/~jlrubin//public/pdfs/Asicboost.pdf"
            }
          ]
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
    "assignerShortName": "mitre",
    "cveId": "CVE-2017-9230",
    "datePublished": "2017-05-24T16:00:00",
    "dateReserved": "2017-05-24T00:00:00",
    "dateUpdated": "2024-08-05T17:02:43.380Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1"
}

Sightings

Author	Source	Type	Date

Nomenclature

Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.

Action not permitted