CVE-2012-4684
Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.
NVD · uneditedThe 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.
Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.
dbcve analysis · high confidenceThe alert system in bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt before 0.7.0 validates signatures using a hash of the signature data. Because the system accepts different character representations of the same signature, an attacker could craft a modified but still-valid signature that hashes differently from the original. This causes the alert system to process the same alert multiple times, leading to resource consumption and denial of service.
Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.
Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.
NVD · CPE data= 0.6.3= 0.3.4= 0.3.5= 0.3.8= 0.3.10= 0.3.11= 0.3.12= 0.4.0= 0.4.1= 0.4.2= 0.4.3= 0.4.4= 0.4.5= 0.6.3= 0.3.4= 0.3.5= 0.3.8= 0.3.10= 0.3.11= 0.4.0= 0.4.1= 0.5.0CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.
From the vector- Attack vector
- Network
- Complexity
- Low
- Authentication
- None
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- Complete
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:N/A:C
Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.
dbcve checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check Bitcoin-Qt versionRun 'Bitcoin-Qt --version' or 'bitcoin-qt -version' from command line, or open Bitcoin-Qt and go to Help > About to see the version numberAffected if The version shown is 0.6.3
-
Check bitcoind versionRun 'bitcoind --version' or 'bitcoind -version' from command lineAffected if The version shown is 0.6.3
-
Check Bitcoin Core versionRun 'bitcoind --version' from command line, or check the version in the Bitcoin Core applicationAffected if The version shown matches any of these: 0.3.4, 0.3.5, 0.3.8, 0.3.10, 0.3.11, 0.3.12, 0.4.0, 0.4.1, 0.4.2, 0.4.3, 0.4.4, or 0.4.5
-
Check wxbitcoin versionRun 'wxbitcoin --version' or check the application version through your OS package manager or program propertiesAffected if The version shown matches any of these: 0.3.4, 0.3.5, 0.3.8, 0.3.10, 0.3.11, 0.4.0, 0.4.1, or 0.5.0
You are affected if you are running any of the listed versions of Bitcoin-Qt, bitcoind, Bitcoin Core, or wxbitcoin, as the alert system in these versions contains the signature validation flaw that allows duplicate alert processing.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.
From vendor dataUpgrade Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind to version 0.7.0 or later, which includes the fix for this alert signature validation issue.
- Consultation1.0 h
- Implementation2.0 h
- Testing2.0 h
- Review / QA1.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $1,664.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2012-4684 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2012-4684 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
No notes yet
Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.
A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.
- Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
- Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
- No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
- No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data