3

Regarding the serious bug found (CVE-2018-17144) I am note sure if I understand the full scope of it correctly.

As far as I understand, any block containing a double-spend of a transaction output that was spend in any block prior to the mined one would not have been catched as an invalid block?

If that is the case I wonder if the test suite of bitcoin core does not have a test case implemented for this situation?

5

There are tests for that. The specifically broken pattern was a block containing a single transaction spending the same output, which originated from an earlier block, twice. Testing it without putting it in a block, or splitting up the double spend across multiple transactions weren't sufficient tests.

  • Ah, now I understand it. Thanks for clarification! Btw: this is the commit that now tests for this specific pattern? github.com/bitcoin/bitcoin/commit/… – Inaki Sep 21 '18 at 8:17
  • This tests for the crash pattern. I asked for feedback earlier today about posting the test case for the inflation patter, but got asked to hold off. I assume it'll be posted in the next couple days. – G. Maxwell Sep 21 '18 at 8:36
  • Yeah, please hold off for a bit. There are still other networks that are vulnerable. – Murch Sep 21 '18 at 17:31

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.