CVE-2013-3220
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 · uneditedbitcoind 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.
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 confidenceBitcoin-Qt/bitcoind before versions 0.4.9rc2, 0.5.8rc2, 0.6.5rc2, and 0.7.3rc2 did not properly validate block sizes against Berkeley DB lock limits. Attackers could send large blocks that exhausted database locks, causing network forks (denial of service) and enabling double-spending attacks due to inconsistent transaction validation across nodes.
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<= 0.4.9= 0.4= 0.4.8= 0.5.0= 0.5.0.4= 0.5.1= 0.5.3.0= 0.5.7= 0.5.8= 0.6.0.10= 0.6.3= 0.7.0all versions= 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<= 0.4.9= 0.4.4= 0.5.7= 0.5.8= 0.6.0.0= 0.6.0.10= 0.6.3= 0.6.4= 0.6.5= 0.7.0= 0.7.1= 0.7.2= 0.6.4= 0.6.5CVSS 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
- Partial
- Availability
- Partial
AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:P
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.
-
Identify the Bitcoin software variantRun 'bitcoind --version' or 'bitcoin-qt --version', or check the application name and executable metadataAffected if The software is Bitcoin-Qt, bitcoind, Bitcoin Core, or Qitcoin Qt from the affected product list
-
Determine the installed version numberRun 'bitcoind --version' or 'bitcoin-qt --version' and note the full version string (e.g., 0.7.2, 0.6.5, 0.5.8)Affected if The version is less than 0.4.9rc2, 0.5.8rc2, 0.6.5rc2, or 0.7.3rc2, or matches any version listed in the affected products
-
Confirm Berkeley DB is in useCheck the blockchain data directory for Berkeley DB wallet files (wallet.dat) or inspect process memory/linked libraries for libdb*Affected if Berkeley DB is the backend database and the version is vulnerable as per step 2
-
Verify the node accepts external connectionsCheck bitcoin.conf for 'listen=1' or inspect network listening ports (8333 or 18333 for testnet)Affected if The node accepts inbound connections, allowing external attackers to send malicious blocks
A user is affected if they run a vulnerable Bitcoin-Qt/bitcoind/Bitcoin Core version (pre-0.4.9rc2/0.5.8rc2/0.6.5rc2/0.7.3rc2) with Berkeley DB as the backend and accept network connections.
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 to Bitcoin Core 0.7.3rc2 or later (preferably a modern stable release). In production environments, ensure block size limits and database lock thresholds are properly enforced to prevent similar issues.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing3.0 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 $2,800.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2013-3220 — 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-2013-3220 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