CVE-2018-19151
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 · uneditedqtum through 0.16 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks. The attack requires no stake and can fill the victim's disk and RAM.
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 confidenceqtum through version 0.16 lacks proper validation of incoming headers and blocks, allowing remote attackers without any stake in the cryptocurrency to send malformed headers/blocks that consume excessive disk and RAM on victim nodes, causing 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<= 0.16CVSS 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:3.1/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 if Qtum node software is installedCheck for qtum daemon in common locations: which qtumd, which qtum, or look in /usr/local/bin/, /opt/qtum/, or user's home directory for .qtum folder. Also check running processes: ps aux | grep -i qtumAffected if Qtum daemon is found running or installed on the system
-
Determine installed Qtum versionRun 'qtumd --version' or 'qtum --version' from the installed location. If running as daemon, check via RPC: qtum-cli getinfo or curl to RPC endpoint with getinfo methodAffected if Version is 0.16 or lower (any version through 0.16 is affected)
-
Verify network exposure of Qtum nodeCheck if Qtum is listening on network ports. Run netstat -tlnp | grep qtum or ss -tlnp | grep qtum. Look for P2P port (3888 by default) and RPC port (3889 by default) bound to 0.0.0.0 rather than 127.0.0.1 onlyAffected if Qtum P2P or RPC ports are listening on 0.0.0.0, indicating external network exposure
-
Check Qtum configuration for connection settingsExamine Qtum config file (typically ~/.qtum/qtum.conf or /opt/qtum/etc/qtum.conf). Look for 'listen=1' setting and check if 'maxconnections' is set to an unusually high value that could amplify attack impactAffected if Node is configured to accept incoming connections (listen=1) with default or high connection limits, enabling unauthenticated peers to send malformed data
A user is affected if they have Qtum version 0.16 or lower running with network exposure (P2P port accessible to untrusted network peers), as remote attackers can send malformed headers/blocks to cause resource exhaustion.
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 qtum to a version beyond 0.16 that includes proper validation of headers and blocks. Additionally, consider implementing peer reputation scoring or connection limits to mitigate abuse from unauthenticated network peers.
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation12.0 h
- Testing8.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $7,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-19151 — 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-2018-19151 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