Bitcoin CoreApplication · Bitcoin

CVE-2018-20587

MEDIUM · 5.5 CVSS v3.0 Published 2019-02-11
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 0.17.1 or later.
See remediation →
57/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Zero-click

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 · unedited
Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 through 0.17.1 and Bitcoin Knots 0.12.0 through 0.17.x before 0.17.1.knots20181229 have Incorrect Access Control. Local users can exploit this to steal currency by binding the RPC IPv4 localhost port, and forwarding requests to the IPv6 localhost port.

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 confidence

Bitcoin Core and Bitcoin Knots have an Incorrect Access Control vulnerability in their RPC interface. Local users can bind to the RPC IPv4 localhost port and forward requests to the IPv6 localhost port, bypassing intended authorization checks and allowing theft of cryptocurrency.

MitigationUpgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.17.2+ or Bitcoin Knots 0.17.1.knots20181229+ to obtain the patched version. Alternatively, ensure RPC ports are not exposed to untrusted local users and consider network isolation.

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
Bitcoin CoreApplication
Affected:>= 0.12.0, <= 0.17.1
Bitcoin KnotsApplication
Affected:>= 0.12.0, <= 0.17.0

CVSS 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
Local
Complexity
Low
Privileges
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
None

CVSS:3.0/AV:L/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

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 checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the installed Bitcoin software and version
    Run `bitcoind --version` or `bitcoin-cli getnetworkinfo` to determine the exact version number. Compare against the affected range: Bitcoin Core 0.12.0 through 0.17.1, or Bitcoin Knots 0.12.0 through 0.17.0.
    Affected if The version falls within 0.12.0 to 0.17.1 for Core, or 0.12.0 to 0.17.0 for Knots.
  2. Confirm RPC interface is enabled
    Check the bitcoin.conf file (located in ~/.bitcoin/ on Linux/macOS or %APPDATA%\Bitcoin\ on Windows) for rpcuser and rpcpassword settings, or verify bitcoind was started with RPC flags. Also check for rpcbind or rpcport directives.
    Affected if RPC authentication is configured and the RPC interface is active.
  3. Identify RPC port bindings
    Inspect the configuration for rpcbind settings (e.g., rpcbind=127.0.0.1 or rpcbind=::1). Use `netstat -anp | grep 8332` or equivalent to see which ports bitcoind is listening on. Check if both IPv4 (127.0.0.1:8332) and IPv6 (::1:8332) localhost bindings exist.
    Affected if The RPC service is bound to both IPv4 and IPv6 localhost addresses, allowing a local untrusted user to potentially forward requests between them.
  4. Check for multiple RPC port configurations
    Review bitcoin.conf for multiple rpcport declarations or rpcbind entries. Examine if separate ports are configured for IPv4 versus IPv6. Look for configurations where the IPv4 and IPv6 bindings point to different authorization states.
    Affected if The RPC service has distinct IPv4 and IPv6 localhost bindings that can be exploited by a local user to bypass authorization checks.

You are affected if you run a vulnerable version (0.12.0-0.17.1 Core or 0.12.0-0.17.0 Knots) with RPC enabled and both IPv4 and IPv6 localhost bindings configured.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

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 data
Upgrade available Upgrade to a release after 0.17.1
Interim mitigation

Upgrade to Bitcoin Core 0.17.2+ or Bitcoin Knots 0.17.1.knots20181229+ to obtain the patched version. Alternatively, ensure RPC ports are not exposed to untrusted local users and consider network isolation.

Fix this in Bitcoin Core Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation3.0 h
  • Implementation6.0 h
  • Testing5.0 h
  • Review / QA2.0 h
16.0 hours of engineering $2,790
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,464.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2018-20587 — 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 sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2018-20587 in production — separate from our analysis above.

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.

What this is

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.

What belongs here
  • 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