CVE-2018-19159
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 · uneditedlux through 5.2.2 (a chain-based proof-of-stake cryptocurrency) allows a remote denial of service, exploitable by an attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake/coins in the system. The attacker sends invalid headers/blocks, which are stored on the victim's disk.
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 · moderate confidenceLux through 5.2.2 proof-of-stake cryptocurrency contains a validation flaw where nodes accept and persist invalid headers/blocks to disk without proper verification. An attacker with even minimal stake can exploit this by broadcasting malformed blocks, causing disk exhaustion and denial of service on victim 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<= 5.2.2CVSS 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 the installed Lux versionRun the Lux client binary with a version flag (typically --version or -v) or check the binary file properties. Compare the version number to the affected range: <= 5.2.2Affected if The installed version is 5.2.2 or lower
-
Locate the Lux data directoryCheck the default cryptocurrency data location or consult the Lux configuration file for the data directory path. This is where blocks and chain data are stored on diskAffected if The data directory exists and the node is running (vulnerability requires a running node)
-
Inspect block storage for anomaliesExamine the block files in the data directory for any entries that appear malformed, corrupted, or that fail integrity checks. Look for blocks with unusual headers or structureAffected if Malformed or invalid block data exists in the block storage, indicating the node accepted blocks without proper validation
-
Monitor disk usage patternsTrack disk space consumption over time, particularly in the data directory. Compare recent growth against expected block addition rates for normal operationAffected if Disk usage is growing unexpectedly or exceeds normal block chain growth patterns, which may indicate the vulnerability is being exploited
-
Check node network exposureReview the Lux node configuration for listening network ports and peer connection settings. Determine if the node accepts incoming connections from untrusted peersAffected if The node accepts incoming peer connections, providing an attack surface for malicious block broadcast
A user is affected if they are running Lux version 5.2.2 or lower with a running node that has its network ports exposed, and they observe malformed blocks in storage or abnormal disk growth patterns.
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 dataImplement pre-persistence validation to reject invalid headers/blocks before they are written to disk, combined with disk space monitoring and rate limiting on block acceptance to prevent abuse.
- Consultation6.0 h
- Implementation20.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA6.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $12,288.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-19159 — 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-2018-19159 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