CVE-2016-10725
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 · uneditedIn Bitcoin Core before v0.13.0, a non-final alert is able to block the special "final alert" (which is supposed to override all other alerts) because operations occur in the wrong order. This behavior occurs in the remote network alert system (deprecated since Q1 2016). This affects other uses of the codebase, such as Bitcoin Knots before v0.13.0.knots20160814 and many altcoins.
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 confidenceIn Bitcoin Core before v0.13.0, the alert system contains a logic flaw where a non-final alert can block the special 'final alert' due to operations being processed in the wrong order. The final alert is designed to override all other alerts, but this precedence is not enforced correctly, allowing malicious or misconfigured alerts to prevent the final alert from taking effect.
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< 0.13.0< 0.13.0< 0.13.0CVSS 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
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 installed Bitcoin Core versionRun 'bitcoind --version' or 'bitcoin-qt --version' from the command line, or query the RPC via 'bitcoin-cli getinfo' and look at the 'version' fieldAffected if The version number is less than 130000 (0.13.0 in numeric format)
-
Verify the alert system is activeQuery the alert system using 'bitcoind getinfo' or 'bitcoin-cli getinfo' and look for an 'alert' key, or use 'bitcoind getrawalert' / 'bitcoin-cli getrawalert' to list alertsAffected if Any alerts are returned or the alert system shows active status while the version is vulnerable
-
Check for pending alerts that may block the final alertUse 'bitcoind getalerts' or 'bitcoin-cli getalerts' to list all current alerts and their expiration timesAffected if Non-final alerts with future expiration dates exist in the system
-
Confirm the final alert statusUse 'bitcoind checkalert' or inspect the alert text returned by getalerts to verify if the final alert (typically containing 'URGENT: This alert has been superseded') is visible and activeAffected if The final alert is not being displayed or is not taking effect despite being issued
You are affected if running Bitcoin Core/Qt/bitcoind version below 0.13.0 and the alert system is active with non-final alerts that could potentially block the final alert from taking precedence.
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 data0.13.0
Upgrade to Bitcoin Core v0.13.0 or later, or Bitcoin Knots v0.13.0.knots20160814 or later. Alternatively, if the deprecated alert system is still in use, disable it entirely or implement external monitoring to detect and respond to alert anomalies.
- Consultation3.0 h
- Implementation6.0 h
- Testing5.0 h
- Review / QA3.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,752.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2016-10725 — 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-2016-10725 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