CVE-2017-18350
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 prior to 0.15.1 have a stack-based buffer overflow if an attacker-controlled SOCKS proxy server is used. This results from an integer signedness error when the proxy server responds with an acknowledgement of an unexpected target domain name.
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 Core (bitcoind and Bitcoin-Qt) before 0.15.1 contain a stack-based buffer overflow in SOCKS proxy handling. The vulnerability stems from an integer signedness error when processing proxy acknowledgments, allowing an attacker controlling the SOCKS proxy to overflow a stack buffer by sending an unexpected target domain name response.
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< 0.15.1CVSS 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
- High
- Privileges
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/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.
-
Check Bitcoin Core versionRun 'bitcoind --version' or 'bitcoin-qt --version' to get the installed version numberAffected if Version is below 0.15.1 (e.g., 0.15.0, 0.14.x, etc.)
-
Verify SOCKS proxy is configuredInspect bitcoin.conf for 'proxy=' settings or check running process arguments for '-proxy=' flagAffected if A SOCKS proxy is configured (e.g., proxy=127.0.0.1:9050 for Tor, or proxy=<ip>:<port>)
-
Confirm proxy type is SOCKSLook for SOCKS4 or SOCKS5 in the proxy configuration (proxy= is SOCKS5 by default; SOCKS4 uses 'socks4=')Affected if SOCKS4 or SOCKS5 proxy is enabled in the configuration
A user is affected only if running Bitcoin Core version below 0.15.1 AND has a SOCKS proxy configured, with the risk being higher if the proxy is untrusted or controlled by a third party.
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 data0.15.1
Upgrade Bitcoin Core to version 0.15.1 or later. If using a SOCKS proxy, ensure it is a trusted proxy server and not controlled by an untrusted party.
- 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-2017-18350 — 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-2017-18350 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