Nimiq Proof Of StakeApplication · Nimiq
CVE-2026-40093
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 · uneditednimiq-blockchain provides persistent block storage for Nimiq's Rust implementation. In 1.3.0 and earlier, block timestamp validation enforces that timestamp >= parent.timestamp for non-skip blocks and timestamp == parent.timestamp + MIN_PRODUCER_TIMEOUT for skip blocks, but there is no visible upper bound check against the wall clock. A malicious block-producing validator can set block timestamps arbitrarily far in the future. This directly affects reward calculations via Policy::supply_at() and batch_delay() in blockchain/src/reward.rs, inflating the monetary supply beyond the intended emission schedule.
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 confidenceThe nimiq-blockchain library lacks an upper bound check on block timestamps during validation. While it correctly validates that timestamps meet minimum thresholds relative to the parent block, it doesn't verify that timestamps aren't excessively far in the future relative to wall clock time. This allows a malicious validator to create blocks with arbitrarily distant timestamps, which corrupts reward calculations via Policy::supply_at() and batch_delay(), causing artificial inflation of the monetary supply beyond the designed emission schedule.
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
Nimiq Proof Of StakeApplication
< 1.3.0CVSS 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
- Low
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- High
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/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 nimiq-blockchain library versionCheck the installed package version by running npm list nimiq-blockchain or checking package.json dependenciesAffected if Installed version is below 1.3.0 (e.g., 1.2.x, 1.1.x, 1.0.x)
-
Confirm block validation is activeVerify that the node or validator process is running and processing blocks - check process status or logs for block validation activityAffected if Block validation is enabled and the node is actively validating blocks
-
Inspect timestamp validation logicExamine the block timestamp validation code in the blockchain library - look for the validation function that checks block.timestamp against parent.timestamp and MIN_PRODUCER_TIMEOUTAffected if The validation code lacks an upper bound check comparing block timestamp against current wall clock time
You are affected if running a nimiq-blockchain library version below 1.3.0 with block validation enabled and the timestamp validation logic missing an upper bound check against wall clock time.
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.
dbcve · scoped1.3.0
Add a timestamp upper bound validation check in the block validation logic to ensure block timestamps do not exceed a reasonable threshold relative to current wall clock time (e.g., current_time + MAX_ALLOWED_TIMESTAMP_DRIFT), rejecting blocks that exceed this bound.
1.3.0 or later
- Upgrade Nimiq Proof Of Stake to version 1.3.0 or later to obtain the fix for missing upper bound timestamp validation
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Fix this in Nimiq Proof Of Stake
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 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 $8,192.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2026-40093 — 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-2026-40093 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