Search
Total
86024 CVE
| CVE | Vendors | Products | Updated | CVSS v2 | CVSS v3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CVE-2012-3789 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Unspecified vulnerability in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt before 0.4.7rc3, 0.5.x before 0.5.6rc3, 0.6.0.x before 0.6.0.9rc1, and 0.6.x before 0.6.3rc1 allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (process hang) via unknown behavior on a Bitcoin network. | |||||
| CVE-2012-4682 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Unspecified vulnerability in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt allows attackers to cause a denial of service via unknown vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-4683. | |||||
| CVE-2012-4683 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Unspecified vulnerability in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt allows attackers to cause a denial of service via unknown vectors, a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-4682. | |||||
| CVE-2012-4684 | 1 Bitcoin | 4 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoind and 1 more | 2020-03-18 | 7.8 HIGH | N/A |
| The alert functionality in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt before 0.7.0 supports different character representations of the same signature data, but relies on a hash of this signature, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (resource consumption) via a valid modified signature for a circulating alert. | |||||
| CVE-2013-2272 | 1 Bitcoin | 3 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoind | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The penny-flooding protection mechanism in the CTxMemPool::accept method in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt before 0.4.9rc1, 0.5.x before 0.5.8rc1, 0.6.0 before 0.6.0.11rc1, 0.6.1 through 0.6.5 before 0.6.5rc1, and 0.7.x before 0.7.3rc1 allows remote attackers to determine associations between wallet addresses and IP addresses via a series of large Bitcoin transactions with insufficient fees. | |||||
| CVE-2013-2273 | 1 Bitcoin | 3 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoind | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt before 0.4.9rc1, 0.5.x before 0.5.8rc1, 0.6.0 before 0.6.0.11rc1, 0.6.1 through 0.6.5 before 0.6.5rc1, and 0.7.x before 0.7.3rc1 make it easier for remote attackers to obtain potentially sensitive information about returned change by leveraging certain predictability in the outputs of a Bitcoin transaction. | |||||
| CVE-2013-2292 | 1 Bitcoin | 3 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoind | 2020-03-18 | 7.8 HIGH | N/A |
| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.0 and earlier allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service (electricity consumption) by mining a block to create a nonstandard Bitcoin transaction containing multiple OP_CHECKSIG script opcodes. | |||||
| CVE-2013-2293 | 1 Bitcoin | 3 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoind | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The CTransaction::FetchInputs method in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt before 0.8.0rc1 copies transactions from disk to memory without incrementally checking for spent prevouts, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (disk I/O consumption) via a Bitcoin transaction with many inputs corresponding to many different parts of the stored block chain. | |||||
| CVE-2013-3219 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.x before 0.8.1 do not enforce a certain block protocol rule, which allows remote attackers to bypass intended access restrictions and conduct double-spending attacks via a large block that triggers incorrect Berkeley DB locking in older product versions. | |||||
| CVE-2013-3220 | 1 Bitcoin | 4 Bitcoin-qt, Bitcoin Core, Bitcoind and 1 more | 2020-03-18 | 6.4 MEDIUM | N/A |
| bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt before 0.4.9rc2, 0.5.x before 0.5.8rc2, 0.6.x before 0.6.5rc2, and 0.7.x before 0.7.3rc2, and wxBitcoin, do not properly consider whether a block's size could require an excessive number of database locks, which allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (split) and enable certain double-spending capabilities via a large block that triggers incorrect Berkeley DB locking. | |||||
| CVE-2013-4165 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 4.3 MEDIUM | N/A |
| The HTTPAuthorized function in bitcoinrpc.cpp in bitcoind 0.8.1 provides information about authentication failure upon detecting the first incorrect byte of a password, which makes it easier for remote attackers to determine passwords via a timing side-channel attack. | |||||
| CVE-2013-4627 | 1 Bitcoin | 1 Bitcoin Core | 2020-03-18 | 5.0 MEDIUM | N/A |
| Unspecified vulnerability in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt 0.8.x allows remote attackers to cause a denial of service (memory consumption) via a large amount of tx message data. | |||||
| 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-2010-5138 | 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-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-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-2010-5141 | 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-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-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-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-2012-1910 | 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-2019-9460 | 2020-03-17 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. It was intended to be published earlier but will be made public later instead. Notes: none. | |||||
| CVE-2019-20509 | 2020-03-12 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it only affected a development version. Notes: none. | |||||
| CVE-2019-16773 | 2020-03-11 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2019-20042. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2019-20042. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2019-20042 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | |||||
| CVE-2019-16787 | 2020-03-11 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2019-19905. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2019-19905. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2019-19905 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | |||||
| CVE-2019-16788 | 2020-03-11 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2019-20043. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2019-20043. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2019-20043 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | |||||
| CVE-2018-10842 | 2020-03-11 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2018-10912. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2018-10912. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2018-10912 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | |||||
| CVE-2009-1605 | 1 Sumatrapdfreader | 1 Sumatrapdf | 2020-03-11 | 9.3 HIGH | N/A |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in the loadexponentialfunc function in mupdf/pdf_function.c in MuPDF in the mupdf-20090223-win32 package, as used in SumatraPDF 0.9.3 and earlier, allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted PDF file. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information. | |||||
| CVE-2009-4117 | 1 Sumatrapdfreader | 1 Sumatrapdf | 2020-03-11 | 9.3 HIGH | N/A |
| Multiple stack-based buffer overflows in pdf_shade4.c in MuPDF before commit 20091125231942, as used in SumatraPDF before 1.0.1, allow remote attackers to cause a denial of service and possibly execute arbitrary code via a /Decode array for certain types of shading that are not properly handled by the (1) pdf_loadtype4shade, (2) pdf_loadtype5shade, (3) pdf_loadtype6shade, and (4) pdf_loadtype7shade functions. NOTE: some of these details are obtained from third party information. | |||||
| CVE-2012-4895 | 1 Sumatrapdfreader | 1 Sumatrapdf | 2020-03-11 | 9.3 HIGH | N/A |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in SumatraPDF before 2.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted PDF document, a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-4896. | |||||
| CVE-2012-4896 | 1 Sumatrapdfreader | 1 Sumatrapdf | 2020-03-11 | 9.3 HIGH | N/A |
| Heap-based buffer overflow in SumatraPDF before 2.1 allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via a crafted PDF document, a different vulnerability than CVE-2012-4895. | |||||
| CVE-2013-2165 | 1 Redhat | 8 Jboss Enterprise Application Platform, Jboss Enterprise Brms Platform, Jboss Enterprise Portal Platform and 5 more | 2020-03-09 | 7.5 HIGH | N/A |
| ResourceBuilderImpl.java in the RichFaces 3.x through 5.x implementation in Red Hat JBoss Web Framework Kit before 2.3.0, Red Hat JBoss Web Platform through 5.2.0, Red Hat JBoss Enterprise Application Platform through 4.3.0 CP10 and 5.x through 5.2.0, Red Hat JBoss BRMS through 5.3.1, Red Hat JBoss SOA Platform through 4.3.0 CP05 and 5.x through 5.3.1, Red Hat JBoss Portal through 4.3 CP07 and 5.x through 5.2.2, and Red Hat JBoss Operations Network through 2.4.2 and 3.x through 3.1.2 does not restrict the classes for which deserialization methods can be called, which allows remote attackers to execute arbitrary code via crafted serialized data. | |||||
| CVE-2016-3181 | 2020-03-09 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: CVE-2016-3182. Reason: This candidate is a duplicate of CVE-2016-3182. Notes: All CVE users should reference CVE-2016-3182 instead of this candidate. All references and descriptions in this candidate have been removed to prevent accidental usage. | |||||
| CVE-2019-20226 | 2020-03-09 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was in a CNA pool that was not assigned to any issues during 2019. Notes: none. | |||||
| CVE-2020-10175 | 2020-03-09 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** DO NOT USE THIS CANDIDATE NUMBER. ConsultIDs: none. Reason: This candidate was withdrawn by its CNA. Further investigation showed that it was not a security issue. Notes: none. | |||||
| CVE-2017-14203 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2017. | |||||
| CVE-2017-14204 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2017. | |||||
| CVE-2017-14205 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2017. | |||||
| CVE-2017-14206 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2017. | |||||
| CVE-2017-14207 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2017. | |||||
| CVE-2017-14208 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2017. | |||||
| CVE-2019-14499 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2019. | |||||
| CVE-2019-14500 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2019. | |||||
| CVE-2019-14501 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2019. | |||||
| CVE-2019-14502 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2019. | |||||
| CVE-2019-14503 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2019. | |||||
| CVE-2019-14504 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2019. | |||||
| CVE-2019-14505 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2019. | |||||
| CVE-2019-14506 | 2020-03-07 | N/A | N/A | ||
| ** REJECT ** Unused CVE for 2019. | |||||