CVE-2021-29245
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 · uneditedBTCPay Server through 1.0.7.0 uses a weak method Next to produce pseudo-random values to generate a legacy API key.
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 confidenceBTCPay Server versions through 1.0.7.0 use a cryptographically weak pseudo-random number generator (PRNG) when creating legacy API keys. The weak RNG produces predictable or enumerable values, potentially allowing attackers to brute-force or guess valid API keys.
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<= 1.0.7.0CVSS 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
- Low
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- None
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:N/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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Identify the installed BTCPay Server versionAccess the BTCPay Server admin dashboard and navigate to Server Settings > Maintenance, or query the /api/version endpoint if exposed. Alternatively, check the Docker container tag or the installed package version.Affected if The installed version is 1.0.7.0 or any earlier version (1.0.x through 1.0.7.0).
-
Determine if legacy API keys are in useIn the BTCPay Server web interface, go to Server Settings > API Keys. Review any API keys created before the upgrade to version 1.0.7.1. Legacy API keys typically have shorter formats or were generated prior to the CSPRNG implementation.Affected if Legacy API keys exist in the system, especially those created before version 1.0.7.1.
-
Audit API key creation logs or timestampsReview server logs for API key creation events, looking for entries around the /api-keys endpoint. Check timestamps to identify keys created when the vulnerable version was running.Affected if API keys were created while BTCPay Server version 1.0.7.0 or earlier was installed.
You are affected if your BTCPay Server installation is version 1.0.7.0 or earlier and you have legacy API keys that were generated by that vulnerable version.
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 BTCPay Server to version 1.0.7.1 or later, which implements a cryptographically secure PRNG (CSPRNG) for API key generation. If upgrading is not immediately possible, monitor API key usage for unauthorized access and consider rotating existing legacy API keys.
- Consultation2.0 h
- Implementation4.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA2.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $3,808.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2021-29245 — 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-2021-29245 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