gsd-2020-26896
Vulnerability from gsd
Modified
2023-12-13 01:22
Details
Prior to 0.11.0-beta, LND (Lightning Network Daemon) had a vulnerability in its invoice database. While claiming on-chain a received HTLC output, it didn't verify that the corresponding outgoing off-chain HTLC was already settled before releasing the preimage. In the case of a hash-and-amount collision with an invoice, the preimage for an expected payment was instead released. A malicious peer could have deliberately intercepted an HTLC intended for the victim node, probed the preimage through a colluding relayed HTLC, and stolen the intercepted HTLC. The impact is a loss of funds in certain situations, and a weakening of the victim's receiver privacy.
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2020-26896


To clipboard 

{
   GSD: {
      alias: "CVE-2020-26896",
      description: "Prior to 0.11.0-beta, LND (Lightning Network Daemon) had a vulnerability in its invoice database. While claiming on-chain a received HTLC output, it didn't verify that the corresponding outgoing off-chain HTLC was already settled before releasing the preimage. In the case of a hash-and-amount collision with an invoice, the preimage for an expected payment was instead released. A malicious peer could have deliberately intercepted an HTLC intended for the victim node, probed the preimage through a colluding relayed HTLC, and stolen the intercepted HTLC. The impact is a loss of funds in certain situations, and a weakening of the victim's receiver privacy.",
      id: "GSD-2020-26896",
   },
   gsd: {
      metadata: {
         exploitCode: "unknown",
         remediation: "unknown",
         reportConfidence: "confirmed",
         type: "vulnerability",
      },
      osvSchema: {
         aliases: [
            "CVE-2020-26896",
         ],
         details: "Prior to 0.11.0-beta, LND (Lightning Network Daemon) had a vulnerability in its invoice database. While claiming on-chain a received HTLC output, it didn't verify that the corresponding outgoing off-chain HTLC was already settled before releasing the preimage. In the case of a hash-and-amount collision with an invoice, the preimage for an expected payment was instead released. A malicious peer could have deliberately intercepted an HTLC intended for the victim node, probed the preimage through a colluding relayed HTLC, and stolen the intercepted HTLC. The impact is a loss of funds in certain situations, and a weakening of the victim's receiver privacy.",
         id: "GSD-2020-26896",
         modified: "2023-12-13T01:22:09.149356Z",
         schema_version: "1.4.0",
      },
   },
   namespaces: {
      "cve.org": {
         CVE_data_meta: {
            ASSIGNER: "cve@mitre.org",
            ID: "CVE-2020-26896",
            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: "Prior to 0.11.0-beta, LND (Lightning Network Daemon) had a vulnerability in its invoice database. While claiming on-chain a received HTLC output, it didn't verify that the corresponding outgoing off-chain HTLC was already settled before releasing the preimage. In the case of a hash-and-amount collision with an invoice, the preimage for an expected payment was instead released. A malicious peer could have deliberately intercepted an HTLC intended for the victim node, probed the preimage through a colluding relayed HTLC, and stolen the intercepted HTLC. The impact is a loss of funds in certain situations, and a weakening of the victim's receiver privacy.",
               },
            ],
         },
         problemtype: {
            problemtype_data: [
               {
                  description: [
                     {
                        lang: "eng",
                        value: "n/a",
                     },
                  ],
               },
            ],
         },
         references: {
            reference_data: [
               {
                  name: "https://gist.github.com/ariard/6bdeb995565d1cc292753e1ee4ae402d",
                  refsource: "MISC",
                  url: "https://gist.github.com/ariard/6bdeb995565d1cc292753e1ee4ae402d",
               },
               {
                  name: "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002857.html",
                  refsource: "MISC",
                  url: "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002857.html",
               },
               {
                  name: "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002855.html",
                  refsource: "MISC",
                  url: "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002855.html",
               },
            ],
         },
      },
      "nvd.nist.gov": {
         configurations: {
            CVE_data_version: "4.0",
            nodes: [
               {
                  children: [],
                  cpe_match: [
                     {
                        cpe23Uri: "cpe:2.3:a:lightning_network_daemon_project:lightning_network_daemon:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                        cpe_name: [],
                        versionEndExcluding: "0.11.0",
                        vulnerable: true,
                     },
                     {
                        cpe23Uri: "cpe:2.3:a:lightning_network_daemon_project:lightning_network_daemon:0.11.0:-:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                        cpe_name: [],
                        vulnerable: true,
                     },
                     {
                        cpe23Uri: "cpe:2.3:a:lightning_network_daemon_project:lightning_network_daemon:0.11.0:beta_rc1:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                        cpe_name: [],
                        vulnerable: true,
                     },
                     {
                        cpe23Uri: "cpe:2.3:a:lightning_network_daemon_project:lightning_network_daemon:0.11.0:beta_rc2:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                        cpe_name: [],
                        vulnerable: true,
                     },
                     {
                        cpe23Uri: "cpe:2.3:a:lightning_network_daemon_project:lightning_network_daemon:0.11.0:beta_rc3:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                        cpe_name: [],
                        vulnerable: true,
                     },
                     {
                        cpe23Uri: "cpe:2.3:a:lightning_network_daemon_project:lightning_network_daemon:0.11.0:beta_rc4:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                        cpe_name: [],
                        vulnerable: true,
                     },
                  ],
                  operator: "OR",
               },
            ],
         },
         cve: {
            CVE_data_meta: {
               ASSIGNER: "cve@mitre.org",
               ID: "CVE-2020-26896",
            },
            data_format: "MITRE",
            data_type: "CVE",
            data_version: "4.0",
            description: {
               description_data: [
                  {
                     lang: "en",
                     value: "Prior to 0.11.0-beta, LND (Lightning Network Daemon) had a vulnerability in its invoice database. While claiming on-chain a received HTLC output, it didn't verify that the corresponding outgoing off-chain HTLC was already settled before releasing the preimage. In the case of a hash-and-amount collision with an invoice, the preimage for an expected payment was instead released. A malicious peer could have deliberately intercepted an HTLC intended for the victim node, probed the preimage through a colluding relayed HTLC, and stolen the intercepted HTLC. The impact is a loss of funds in certain situations, and a weakening of the victim's receiver privacy.",
                  },
               ],
            },
            problemtype: {
               problemtype_data: [
                  {
                     description: [
                        {
                           lang: "en",
                           value: "CWE-354",
                        },
                     ],
                  },
               ],
            },
            references: {
               reference_data: [
                  {
                     name: "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002857.html",
                     refsource: "MISC",
                     tags: [
                        "Mailing List",
                        "Patch",
                        "Third Party Advisory",
                     ],
                     url: "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002857.html",
                  },
                  {
                     name: "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002855.html",
                     refsource: "MISC",
                     tags: [
                        "Mailing List",
                        "Third Party Advisory",
                     ],
                     url: "https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/pipermail/lightning-dev/2020-October/002855.html",
                  },
                  {
                     name: "https://gist.github.com/ariard/6bdeb995565d1cc292753e1ee4ae402d",
                     refsource: "MISC",
                     tags: [
                        "Third Party Advisory",
                     ],
                     url: "https://gist.github.com/ariard/6bdeb995565d1cc292753e1ee4ae402d",
                  },
               ],
            },
         },
         impact: {
            baseMetricV2: {
               acInsufInfo: false,
               cvssV2: {
                  accessComplexity: "MEDIUM",
                  accessVector: "NETWORK",
                  authentication: "NONE",
                  availabilityImpact: "NONE",
                  baseScore: 5.8,
                  confidentialityImpact: "PARTIAL",
                  integrityImpact: "PARTIAL",
                  vectorString: "AV:N/AC:M/Au:N/C:P/I:P/A:N",
                  version: "2.0",
               },
               exploitabilityScore: 8.6,
               impactScore: 4.9,
               obtainAllPrivilege: false,
               obtainOtherPrivilege: false,
               obtainUserPrivilege: false,
               severity: "MEDIUM",
               userInteractionRequired: false,
            },
            baseMetricV3: {
               cvssV3: {
                  attackComplexity: "LOW",
                  attackVector: "NETWORK",
                  availabilityImpact: "NONE",
                  baseScore: 8.2,
                  baseSeverity: "HIGH",
                  confidentialityImpact: "LOW",
                  integrityImpact: "HIGH",
                  privilegesRequired: "NONE",
                  scope: "UNCHANGED",
                  userInteraction: "NONE",
                  vectorString: "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:N",
                  version: "3.1",
               },
               exploitabilityScore: 3.9,
               impactScore: 4.2,
            },
         },
         lastModifiedDate: "2020-11-05T15:43Z",
         publishedDate: "2020-10-21T02:15Z",
      },
   },
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.

Security Advisory comment format.

This schema specifies the format of a comment related to a security advisory.

UUIDv4 of the comment
UUIDv4 of the Vulnerability-Lookup instance
When the comment was created originally
When the comment was last updated
Title of the comment
Description of the comment
The identifier of the vulnerability (CVE ID, GHSA-ID, PYSEC ID, etc.).



Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.