nimiq-block contains block primitives to be used in Nimiq's Rust implementation…
CVE-2026-33471 is a critical-severity improper input validation vulnerability in nimiq-block from Nimiq, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 9.6 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an attacker with a low-privileged account, without any action from a user. Affected nimiq-block versions: < 1.3.0. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.22% chance of exploitation within 30 days, which is low compared with other CVEs.
Critical severity: a successful attack would have severe impact.
What to do
- Update Nimiq Proof-of-stake to 1.3.0 or a later version.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
Affected products and versions
| Vendor | Product | Affected versions | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|---|
| Nimiq | nimiq-block | < 1.3.0 | Not stated |
| Nimiq | Nimiq Proof-of-stake | before 1.3.0 | 1.3.0 |
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- LowNo special conditions are needed; the attack works reliably.
- Privileges required
- LowA basic user account is enough.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- ChangedThe attack can reach beyond the vulnerable component into other systems.
- Confidentiality
- NoneNo data is disclosed.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:C/C:N/I:H/A:H. Scored by CNA (github.com).
Official description
nimiq-block contains block primitives to be used in Nimiq's Rust implementation. `SkipBlockProof::verify` computes its quorum check using `BitSet.len()`, then iterates `BitSet` indices and casts each `usize` index to `u16` (`slot as u16`) for slot lookup. Prior to version 1.3.0, if an attacker can get a `SkipBlockProof` verified where `MultiSignature.signers` contains out-of-range indices spaced by 65536, these indices inflate `len()` but collide onto the same in-range `u16` slot during aggregation. This makes it possible for a malicious validator with far fewer than `2f+1` real signer slots to pass skip block proof verification by multiplying a single BLS signature by the same factor. The patch for this vulnerability is included as part of v1.3.0. No known workarounds are available.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Improper Input Validation
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Consider using language-theoretic security (LangSec) techniques that characterize inputs using a formal language and build recognizers for that language. This effectively requires parsing to be a distinct layer that effectively enforces a boundary between raw input and internal data representations, instead of allowing parser code to be scattered throughout the program, where it could be subject to errors or inconsistencies that create weaknesses.
- Use an input validation framework such as Struts or the OWASP ESAPI Validation API. Note that using a framework does not automatically address all input validation problems; be mindful of weaknesses that could arise from misusing the framework itself (CWE-1173).
- Understand all the potential areas where untrusted inputs can enter the product, including but not limited to: parameters or arguments, cookies, anything read from the network, environment variables, reverse DNS lookups, query results, request headers, URL components, e-mail, files, filenames, databases, and any external systems that provide data to the application. Remember that such inputs may be obtained indirectly through API calls.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: partial).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Patches and release notes
Recent Improper Input Validation vulnerabilities
- 7.8 High severity
- 7.2 High severity
- 8.2 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 9.9 Critical severity
- 7.2 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.