CVE-2018-19162
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 · uneditedDivi through 4.0.5 (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 confidenceDivi through 4.0.5 fails to properly validate incoming headers and blocks in its proof-of-stake consensus. An attacker who acquires even a small amount of stake can send invalid headers/blocks that are accepted and stored on the victim's disk, causing denial of service through disk space exhaustion or processing overhead.
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<= 4.0.5.0CVSS 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:3.1/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.
-
Determine installed Divi versionRun 'divi-cli getinfo' or check the executable version with 'divi-cli --version' or 'divid --version'. On Linux, also check 'dpkg -l | grep divi' or the binary file version.Affected if The version number returned is 4.0.5.0 or lower (e.g., 4.0.4, 4.0.3, etc.)
-
Verify Divi node is running with proof-of-stake consensusRun 'divi-cli getstakingstatus' or 'divi-cli getnetworkinfo' to confirm the node is actively staking. The vulnerability applies to any node running the Divi proof-of-stake consensus.Affected if The node returns staking as active or the wallet is participating in proof-of-stake validation.
-
Inspect block storage for anomaliesCheck the blockchain data directory (default ~/.divi/blocks/ or ~/.divi/chainwork/) for unusually large or numerous block files in a short time period. Use 'ls -la ~/.divi/blocks/' to list block files and note timestamps.Affected if There is a sudden spike in block file count or disk usage, especially from a single peer connection.
-
Check logs for invalid header/block warningsReview Divi daemon logs ( ~/.divi/debug.log) for entries containing 'invalid header', 'invalid block', 'rejected', or validation failures around the time of potential attack.Affected if Logs show repeated acceptance or storage of blocks that should have been rejected as invalid.
You are affected if the installed Divi version is 4.0.5.0 or lower and the node is running with proof-of-stake consensus enabled, as the validation flaw exists in all such versions regardless of configuration.
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 a patched version of Divi that implements proper validation of headers and blocks before storage, and implement disk usage limits or automatic cleanup of invalid blocks.
- Consultation8.0 h
- Implementation24.0 h
- Testing12.0 h
- Review / QA8.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $14,656.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-19162 — 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-2018-19162 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