CVE-2024-34478

highpriority · track · 0EPSS 0.006 · 46 %ileEUUS
grimoire priorityP2 · Scheduled
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.56% (46th) EPSS
CVSS 7.5 · high
Is it mine?
3 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
4 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · osv · nvd

EPSS · scored 2026-10-27

btcd before 0.24.0 does not correctly implement the consensus rules outlined in BIP 68 and BIP 112, making it susceptible to consensus failures. Specifically, it uses the transaction version as a signed integer when it is supposed to be treated as unsigned. There can be a chain split and loss of funds.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

7.5
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode⚠ sources disagree · medium–high · 6.9–7.5

v3.17.5highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.17.5highCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:Nsecondaryexploitability 3.9 · impact 3.6
v3.16.9mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

ssvc

A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.

Exploitation: none · Automatable: yes · Technical Impact: partialcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

affected products (3)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

05

advisories (2)

Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.

  • GHSA-3jgf-r68h-xfqmbtcd susceptible to consensus failures2024-05-05ghsa · osvUS

    btcd before 0.24.0 does not correctly implement the consensus rules outlined in BIP 68 and BIP 112, making it susceptible to consensus failures. Specifically, it uses the transaction version as a signed integer when it is supposed to be treated as unsigned. There can be a chain split and loss of funds.

  • GO-2024-2818Consensus failures in github.com/btcsuite/btcd2024-05-08vendor · osvUS

    Incorrect implementation of the consensus rules outlined in BIP 68 and BIP 112 making btcd susceptible to consensus failures. Specifically, it uses the transaction version as a signed integer when it is supposed to be treated as unsigned. There can be a chain split and loss of funds.

06

also known as (5)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

07

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2024-05-05modified 2026-06-17
08

references (11)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan