~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe -version
Version 7.1.5. [ATTACKSAFE ULTRA, © 2024]
~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe -ultra-ultra: private_key_leak_vulnerability.sage-ultra: key_generation_vulnerability.sage
-ultra: buffer_vulnerability.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2020-12034.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_attack_man_in_middle.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_unexpected_token_error_unexpected_token.sage
-ultra: zero-sum_transaction_vulnerability.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2018-17144.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2019-12923.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2019-1803.sage
-ultra: transaction_processing_vulnerability_cve-2020-12034.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_bitcoin_module_cve-2021-32227.sage
-ultra: use-after-free_vulnerability_cve-2020-12454.sage
-ultra: permission_check_vulnerability_cve-2021-28663.sage
-ultra: path_traversal_vulnerability_cve-2022-29923.sage
-ultra: race_condition_vulnerability_cve-2023-45678.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_injection_attack.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_with_a_critical_error_in_beziercurveto_function.sage
-ultra: insufficient_entropy_vulnerability.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_side-channel_attack.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_to_timer_attack.sage
-ultra: deserialization_error_vulnerability_cve-2023-0085.sage
-ultra: bug_vulnerability_in_verifysignature_function_cve-2023-0087.sage
-ultra: use-after-free_error_vulnerability_in_createsignature_function_cve-2023-0088.sage
-ultra: remote_code_execution_vulnerability_rce.sage
-ultra: memory_leak_vulnerability.sage
-ultra: man-in-the-middle_vulnerability_man-in-the-middle_mitm.sage
-ultra: error_vulnerability_in_implementation_of_hierarchical_deterministic_keys.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_to_cross-site_request_forgery_attack_csrf.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_to_insufficient_input_validation.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2021-37492.sage
-ultra: outdated_algorithm_vulnerability_cve-2018-1000888.sage
-ultra: insufficient_authentication_vulnerability_cve-2020-12345.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_clickjacking.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_xss_cross-site_scripting.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_when_processing_requests_via_api.sage
-ultra: double_spending_vulnerability_double-spending.sage
-ultra: transaction_processing_error_vulnerability_cve-2018-17145.sage
-ultra: block_validation_vulnerability_cve-2019-12384.sage
-ultra: network_error_vulnerability_cve-2020-14343.sage
-ultra: consensus_code_bug_vulnerability_cve-2019-12133.sage
-ultra: denial_of_service_vulnerability_cve-2020-12653.sage
-ultra: user_privacy_vulnerability_cve-2021-28703.sage
-ultra: transaction_processing_code_bug_vulnerability_cve-2022-24778.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2019-12999.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_return-of-pci.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_heartbleed_bug.sage
-ultra: padding_oracle_vulnerability_cve-2016-7420.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2018-12437.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2019-14437.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2016-1000339.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_implementation_of_ecdsa_algorithm_cve-2016-1000343.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_implementation_of_tls_protocol_cve-2015-6644_cve-2015-7940.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_implementation_of_gcm_algorithm_cve-2016-1000352.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_implementation_of_poly1305.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_implementation_of_salsa20_stream_cipher_in_nacl.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_function_curve25519.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2019-17315.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2018-1000620.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2017-18333.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2016-9299.sage
-ultra: password_hashing_vulnerability_argon2.sage
-ultra: info_leakage_vulnerability_in_crypto_scalarmult_function_cve-2018-1000842.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_crypto_box_keypair_function_cve-2017-0373.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_bug_rubber-hose.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_roca.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_implementation_of_hmac.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_bleichenbacher.sage
-ultra: pkcs_v1.5_implementation_vulnerability_cve-2016-2183.sage
-ultra: rsa_implementation_vulnerability_cve-2013-7459.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_crash_during_verification.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_curve_mismatch.sage
-ultra: signature_verification_bug_vulnerability_null_value_r.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_curve-swap.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2020-16869.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_cve-2021-38099.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_genkey_cve-2021-20263.sage
-ultra: parsedkgresponse_function_mishandling_vulnerability_cve-2020-16868.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_function_secp256k1_ecdsa_recover.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_function_secp256k1_ecdsa_sign.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_function_secp256k1_ecdh.sage
-ultra: bitcoin_network_key_format_vulnerability_cve-2020-12066.sage
-ultra: point_multiplication_calculation_vulnerability_cve-2018-17144.sage
-ultra: unqualified_key_handling_vulnerability_cve-2017-12617.sage
-ultra: integer_overflow_vulnerability_cve-2022-34718.sage
-ultra: ecdsa_signature_verification_vulnerability_cve-2022-34716.sage
-ultra: ecdsa_implementation_vulnerability_cve-2019-10662.sage
-ultra: timing_attack_vulnerability.sage
-ultra: invalid_curve_attack_vulnerability.sage
-ultra: file_unauthorized_access_vulnerability_cve-2022-24778.sage
-ultra: incorrect_signature_validation_vulnerability_cve-2020-26250.sage
-ultra: buffer_overflow_vulnerability_in_function_base58checkdecode.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_lucky13.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_in_implementation_of_base58check.sage
-ultra: null_byte_vulnerability.sage
-ultra: timing_attack_vulnerability_in_ripemd160_implementation_in_openssl.sage
-ultra: vulnerability_length_extension_vulnerability.sage
Start
~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe private_key_leak_vulnerability.sage
Private key leak
Leakage of a private key through a side-channel attack
In older versions of the library, it was theoretically possible to extract a private key through side-channel attacks (time or electromagnetic radiation) during the signing operation. Modern versions use safer constant algorithms.
Leakage of private keys
Also in 2022, it was discovered that in some cases btcpy could leak users private keys. This is a critical vulnerability since private keys are a key element of the security of Bitcoin wallets. The vulnerability was fixed in version 0.10.0.
####################################################
~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe key_generation_vulnerability.sage
Key generation vulnerability
Key generation vulnerability (2018): In August 2018, a critical vulnerability was discovered that allowed an attacker to predict private keys generated using libwally-core. This vulnerability was caused by insufficient entropy in random number generation to generate predictable private keys.
Error in implementation of BIP32 (Branching of Hierarchical Keys)
In earlier versions of the library, a bug was discovered in the implementation of the BIP32 protocol for branching hierarchical deterministic keys. This could lead to the generation of incorrect child keys and potential loss of funds. The bug was fixed in version 3.0.0.
Insufficient Randomness Vulnerability (February 2019): In February 2019, an insufficient entropy vulnerability in key generation was discovered. Entropy is a measure of randomness, and insufficient entropy can result in predictable and less secure keys. This vulnerability was addressed by improving the random number generation process.
Key generation vulnerability In February 2022, a vulnerability related to cryptographic key generation was discovered. The library used an insecure random number generator, which could lead to predictability of the generated keys. An attacker with access to the keys could forge digital signatures and commit fraud.
Bugs in the implementation of HD wallets: In 2019, several bugs were discovered in the implementation of hierarchical deterministic (HD) wallets in the BlockTrail SDK Python library. These errors could lead to the generation of incorrect addresses and incorrect key management, potentially putting user funds at risk. The developers quickly responded to the problem and released an updated version of the library with fixes.
Key Generation Vulnerability (CVE-2017-0373)
In 2017, a key generation vulnerability in libsodium was discovered. When using the crypto_box_keypair function to generate a key pair, the same secret key could be accidentally generated multiple times, resulting in different users having the same key pairs. This vulnerability was fixed in version 1.0.13.
Key Generation Vulnerability (CVE-2017-0373)
In 2017, a key generation vulnerability in libsodium was discovered. When using the crypto_box_keypair function to generate a key pair, the same secret key could be accidentally generated multiple times, resulting in different users having the same key pairs. This vulnerability was fixed in version 1.0.13.
Key generation issues: Some older versions of PyCrypto have been found to have problems generating cryptographically secure random numbers used to generate keys. This could lead to predictable and weak keys, making the encryption less secure. The problem was resolved with an update to the random number generation algorithms.
Vulnerability in the implementation of RSA (CVE-2013-7459)
In 2013, a serious vulnerability was discovered in the implementation of the RSA algorithm in PyCrypto. The problem was that RSA keys were generated insecurely, making them easily recoverable by attackers. This compromised the confidentiality and integrity of data protected with vulnerable keys. The developers had to urgently release an update that corrects this critical error.
“Curve-Swap” vulnerability (August 2019): This vulnerability, discovered by researchers at the University of Birmingham, allowed an attacker to forge a digital signature by changing the ellipse curve used to generate keys. The vulnerability was due to insufficient validation of curve parameters during the signing process. As a result, a library update was released with a fix that strengthened the curve parameter checking.
Random number generation vulnerability (CVE-2022-34717). The random number generator used in SharpECC was found to be cryptographically weak and predictable. This could lead to the generation of keys and signatures with insufficient entropy, which are vulnerable to hacking.
Vulnerability in the implementation of ECDSA (CVE-2019-10662)
In June 2019, a critical vulnerability was identified in the implementation of the ECDSA digital signature algorithm in SharpECC. Due to an error in generating random numbers (nonce) when creating signatures, an attacker could recover a private key based on several signatures of the same key. This allowed signatures to be forged and compromised the security of systems using SharpECC.
A serious vulnerability discovered in SharpCrypto was due to an incorrect implementation of the pseudo-random number generator (PRNG). PRNG plays an important role in cryptography by generating unpredictable and unique keys and values. The vulnerability, dubbed “CVE-2018-20250,” allowed an attacker to predict the values generated by the PRNG, which significantly reduced the effectiveness of encryption. This vulnerability was caused by insufficient initialization of the internal state of the PRNG, which allowed an attacker to partially predict future values by knowing previous ones.
Potential vulnerability when using keys on the client side: When using the bip32 library in web applications, keys are generated and stored on the client side (in the users browser). While this reduces server-side risks, vulnerabilities or malicious code on the users device could compromise the keys.
Error in the implementation of the derive function (CVE-2022-31876): An error was discovered in the implementation of the derive function of the bip32 library, leading to incorrect generation of child keys in certain cases. This could result in loss of user funds when using affected versions of the library. The bug was fixed in subsequent releases.
Untrusted Entropy Key Generation Vulnerability (CVE-2020-5741): Some versions of the bip32 library used untrusted entropy sources, such as Math.random() in JavaScript, to generate seeds and keys. This led to the predictability of the keys and the potential for attackers to select them. This vulnerability was fixed in later versions of the library.
Incorrect use of HD key paths
One of the main problems with BIP32 is the incorrect use of HD (Hierarchical Deterministic) key paths. BIP32 uses tree structures to generate keys, where each key is associated with a parent key and can produce child keys. These paths are used to create key hierarchies that can be used for various purposes, such as creating new addresses or supporting multi-signature schemes.
Improper use of HD key paths can result in leakage of important key information and ultimately loss of funds. For example, if the same HD key path is used for different purposes, an attacker could gain access to sensitive keys and cause damage.
Vulnerability in the BIP32 implementation in Trezor (2019)
In 2019, a vulnerability was discovered in the BIP32 implementation in the Trezor hardware wallet. This vulnerability allowed an attacker to recover the master key and master code of the victims wallet chain by knowing just one private key generated from that master key.
The problem was related to the way Trezor implemented the process of creating a new private key from the master key and the chain master code. In some cases, Trezor used a vulnerable algorithm that allowed an attacker to recover the master key and chain master code from a single private key.
After discovering this vulnerability, Trezor developers released a firmware update that fixed the problem. However, it showed that even popular and widely used BIP32 implementations can have serious bugs.
BIP32 (Bitcoin Improvement Proposal 32) is a standard for generating hierarchical deterministic cryptographic keys in Bitcoin-based cryptocurrencies. It provides a convenient and secure structure for managing keys and addresses. However, like any technology, BIP32 may contain vulnerabilities and errors that can lead to serious consequences. In this article, we will look at some critical issues associated with the BIP32 library.
Problems with random number generation: In 2018, it was discovered that some implementations of the libsecp256k1 library use low-quality pseudo-random number generators, making them vulnerable to prediction and manipulation. The quality of random number generation is of utmost importance in cryptography, and this issue highlights the need for careful testing and auditing of the cryptographic libraries used.
####################################################
~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe buffer_vulnerability.sage
Buffer vulnerability
Vulnerability in processing long messages (2020): In March 2020, a vulnerability was discovered related to the processing of long messages during encryption. An attacker could send a specially crafted long message, resulting in a buffer overflow and potential execution of malicious code.
Unauthorized Memory Access (2022): In June 2022, several vulnerabilities were discovered related to improper handling of pointers and buffers, potentially allowing an attacker to access sensitive data in memory or cause a denial of service.
Buffer handling vulnerability (CVE-2018-17144)
In August 2018, a vulnerability was discovered in the BitcoinJS-lib library related to the handling of buffers in the Transaction.fromBuffer function. The bug involved insufficient input length checking, which allowed an attacker to overflow buffers and inject arbitrary code. This vulnerability has been classified as critical (CVSS 9.8) and could potentially lead to the theft of bitcoins or complete compromise of the device.
The solution to this problem was to add checks for the length of the input data and eliminate the possibility of unintentional changes in the buffer size.
Buffer handling vulnerability (CVE-2018-17144)
In August 2018, a vulnerability was discovered in the BitcoinJS-lib library related to the handling of buffers in the Transaction.fromBuffer function. The bug involved insufficient input length checking, which allowed an attacker to overflow buffers and inject arbitrary code. This vulnerability has been classified as critical (CVSS 9.8) and could potentially lead to the theft of bitcoins or complete compromise of the device.
The solution to this problem was to add checks for the length of the input data and eliminate the possibility of unintentional changes in the buffer size.
Vulnerability in the bitcoin-message module (CVE-2018-17144)
In 2018, a vulnerability was discovered in the bitcoin-message module, part of the Cryptocoin library. It allowed an attacker to perform a buffer overflow, which could lead to remote code execution (RCE) or system destabilization. This vulnerability is designated CVE-2018-17144 and has been fixed in version 2.0.2 of the Cryptocoin library.
Buffer vulnerability: In 2019, a buffer overflow (CVE-2019-12345) was discovered in the input processing function. This vulnerability allowed remote attackers to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service by sending specially crafted input. The problem was caused by missing bounds checking when copying data to the buffer.
Buffer Overflow Vulnerability (CVE-2023-0086)
A bug in the ParseSignature function could cause a buffer overflow when processing long signatures.
This could cause the application to crash or potentially lead to arbitrary code execution.
Side-Channel Attacks Vulnerability: In June 2018, the secp256k1.swift library was discovered to be vulnerable to Side-Channel Attacks. This vulnerability allowed an attacker to extract the secret key by analyzing the execution time and energy consumption during cryptographic operations. This highlights the importance of protecting against side-channel attacks when implementing cryptographic software.
ECDSA Signature Verification Bug: In February 2020, a critical bug was discovered in the ECDSA Signature Verification feature. Due to a bug in the verification implementation, it was discovered that the library accepts invalid signatures as valid. This vulnerability could allow an attacker to forge signatures and make fraudulent transactions that would be accepted as valid.
Memory safety issues: In some cases, memory safety issues have been reported in the secp256k1.swift library. This includes potential vulnerabilities such as buffer overflows and memory management errors that could lead to arbitrary code execution or disclosure of sensitive information. Developers need to carefully check their code for such memory safety issues.
Insufficient randomness (Entropy) in key generation: Early versions of the secp256k1.swift library had a flaw in the generation of random numbers used to generate cryptographic keys. Insufficient randomness can lead to predictable keys, making the system vulnerable to attack. This issue was resolved by improving the random number generator in later versions of the library.
Vulnerabilities in the implementation of point compression: Some vulnerabilities were discovered in the implementation of elliptic curve point compression in the secp256k1.swift library. These vulnerabilities could allow an attacker to manipulate the compressed points and potentially break cryptographic operations. The issues were resolved by improving the validation and handling of compressed points.
Buffer overflow vulnerability
A buffer overflow vulnerability was also discovered in the library. This vulnerability could allow attackers to gain control of the system running the library.
The vulnerability is related to the bip39_mnemonic_from_bytes() function, which is used to generate mnemonic phrases from bit strings. Under certain circumstances, this function may overflow the buffer allocated for storing the mnemonic phrase.
Successful exploitation of this vulnerability could result in arbitrary code execution by the attacker. This could give an attacker complete control over the system on which the library is running.
Corrective measures
Bugs and vulnerabilities in the Mnemonic Code Generator library have been fixed in version 2.2.1. Users are strongly recommended to update the library to the latest version.
Lack of buffer overflow protection (BUFFER OVERFLOW)
One of the most common vulnerabilities in the btcpy library is a lack of buffer overflow protection. This type of vulnerability occurs when a program attempts to write more data than can fit in a specific memory block, resulting in unexpected results and possible hacking. To prevent this vulnerability, library developers are advised to test all functions that accept input and use buffer overflow protection techniques such as checking string lengths and limiting the size of input data.
Buffer Overflow Vulnerability (CVE-2018-12437)
In 2018, a buffer overflow vulnerability was discovered in the implementation of the SHAKE-128 hashing algorithm. This vulnerability could lead to arbitrary code execution and complete system compromise.
Buffer Overflow Vulnerability (CVE-2018-12437)
In 2018, a buffer overflow vulnerability was discovered in the implementation of the SHAKE-128 hashing algorithm. This vulnerability could lead to arbitrary code execution and complete system compromise.
The problem was that the Crypto++ library did not check the length of the input data before processing it. An attacker could transmit large, specially crafted data, resulting in a buffer overflow and potential execution of malicious code.
Vulnerability in the implementation of Poly1305 (2016)
In 2016, cryptography researchers Ismail Taghi, Ali Abbas, and Mohammad Tabari discovered a vulnerability in the implementation of the Poly1305 MAC function in NaCl. They found that by using some specially crafted messages, an attacker can cause a buffer overflow in Poly1305, leading to leakage of key information. This vulnerability was fixed in version 2016-07-13.
Password Hashing Vulnerability (Argon2)
In 2015, before the official inclusion of the Argon2 algorithm in libsodium, a vulnerability related to its implementation was discovered. When using certain sets of Argon2 password hashing algorithm parameters, a buffer overflow could occur, allowing attackers to execute arbitrary code. This issue was resolved before Argon2 was included in libsodium, but is worth keeping in mind when using older versions of the library or third-party Argon2 implementations.
Code vulnerabilities: Software errors such as buffer overflows, incorrect error handling, memory leaks can be exploited by attackers to launch attacks on applications that use the library.
Error in processing the “Content-Length” header
In 2018, a bug was discovered in OkHttp related to incorrect processing of the “Content-Length” header of the server response. This error could lead to a buffer overflow and vulnerability in the application.
To solve this problem, the OkHttp developers have released a library update version 3.10.2. It is recommended that all users update their applications to this version or later.
Buffer overflow and DOS attacks (CVE-2015-5237)
In 2015, a critical vulnerability was discovered in the C++ implementation of protobuf, which allowed an attacker to cause a buffer overflow and execute code. This issue could also be used for DoS attacks, causing applications using a vulnerable version of protobuf to crash.
Buffer Overflow Vulnerability (CVE-2015-5237)
In 2015, a critical buffer overflow vulnerability was discovered in the Buffers protocol. It allowed an attacker to execute arbitrary code on the server.
The vulnerability was caused by incorrect processing of large messages, which could lead to memory corruption. This vulnerability affected all versions of the Buffers protocol up to 3.0.0-beta-4.
Buffer Overflow Bug (CVE-2018-17144): A critical buffer overflow vulnerability in the Base58CheckDecode function was discovered in 2018, which could allow an attacker to execute arbitrary code or cause a denial of service. This vulnerability was fixed in version 3.3.2 of the library.
Heartbleed Vulnerability (2014)
One of the most famous and critical vulnerabilities in libecc was the Heartbleed vulnerability, discovered in 2014. This vulnerability allowed attackers to read the memory of protected systems, which could lead to the disclosure of sensitive information such as passwords, encryption keys, and personal user data.
Heartbleed was caused by a buffer error in libeccs implementation of the TLS/DTLS heartbeat protocol. This flaw allowed remote attackers to obtain additional data from protected systems that used vulnerable versions of libecc.
Buffer overflow in libbase58 library
In 2017, a critical buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the popular libbase58 library. The bug allowed data to be written outside the allocated memory when decoding incorrect Base58 strings. This allowed the attacker to execute arbitrary code on the victims system.
The vulnerability affected many cryptocurrency wallets and applications using libbase58. The developers quickly released a fix, but the incident demonstrated the risks of using unsafe third-party libraries.
Buffer overflow in libbase58 library
In 2017, a critical buffer overflow vulnerability was found in the popular libbase58 library. The bug allowed data to be written outside the allocated memory when decoding incorrect Base58 strings. This allowed the attacker to execute arbitrary code on the victims system.
The vulnerability affected many cryptocurrency wallets and applications using libbase58. The developers quickly released a fix, but the incident demonstrated the risks of using unsafe third-party libraries.
Vulnerability in the encoding function
In 2020, a vulnerability was discovered in the encoding function of the libbase58 library, which could lead to a buffer overflow. This vulnerability was caused by using an incorrect buffer length when encoding data to Base58 format. As a result, an attacker could create a specially crafted Base58 string, which, when encoded, could cause a buffer overflow and arbitrary code execution.
“Null byte vulnerability”
One of the most famous vulnerabilities in libbase58 was discovered in 2018 and was called the “Zero Byte Vulnerability.” This vulnerability allowed attackers to create specially crafted Base58 strings that were decoded by the library as strings with leading zero bytes. This could lead to a buffer overflow and potential execution of malicious code on the target system. The vulnerability was fixed by adding additional checks when decoding Base58 strings.
####################################################
~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe vulnerability_cve-2020-12034.sage
Transaction processing vulnerability (CVE-2020-12034)
In April 2020, a vulnerability was discovered in the BitcoinJS-lib library related to transaction processing in the Transaction.fromHex function. The bug involved insufficient input validation, which allowed an attacker to inject arbitrary code or steal bitcoins. This vulnerability was classified as critical (CVSS 9.8) and could lead to complete compromise of the system.
Bug in the bitcoin-protocol module (CVE-2020-12034)
In 2020, a bug was discovered in the bitcoin-protocol module, which allowed an attacker to crash an application using this library. This error occurred due to incorrect handling of some non-standard messages in the Bitcoin protocol. This vulnerability is designated CVE-2020-12034 and has been fixed in version 3.3.0 of the Cryptocoin library.
####################################################
~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe vulnerability_attack_man_in_middle.sage
Vulnerability attack man in the middle
“中間者攻撃” (man-in-the-middle attack) vulnerability: In 2018, the CryptoCoinJS library was discovered to be susceptible to a man-in-the-middle attack due to the use of insecure web sockets. This vulnerability allowed attackers to intercept traffic between a user and a website, potentially leading to data theft and manipulation of data transmissions.
“Return-of-PCI” vulnerability: In 2012, a vulnerability was discovered in the implementation of PCI encryption (now RSA) in Crypto++. This vulnerability allowed an attacker to conduct a man-in-the-middle attack and gain access to encrypted data using specially crafted decryption messages. The problem was caused by insufficient data integrity checking during the decryption process.
Vulnerabilities in the implementation of the TLS protocol (CVE-2015-6644, CVE-2015-7940). These vulnerabilities are related to the possibility of a man-in-the-middle attack if the TLS protocol is not implemented correctly.
####################################################
~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe vulnerability_unexpected_token_error_unexpected_token.sage
“unexpected token” error A bug has been discovered in some versions of the CryptoCoinJS library that causes an “unexpected token” error to occur when attempting to decode some transactions. This issue could cause applications that use the library to fail and potentially make them vulnerable to attacks.
####################################################
~/Bitcoin-Vulnerabilities$ ./attacksafe zero-sum_transaction_vulnerability.sage
Zero-sum transaction vulnerability: In 2019, a vulnerability was discovered in the CryptoCoinJS library that allows zero-sum transactions to be created. This means that the attacker could send cryptocurrency to the victims address, but he himself would not lose any funds. This vulnerability could lead to financial losses for users and undermine trust in cryptocurrencies in general.
####################################################
