btcd is an alternative full node bitcoin implementation written in Go (golang). The btcd Bitcoin client (versions 0.10 to 0.24) did not correctly re-implement Bitcoin Core's "FindAndDelete()" functionality. This logic is consensus-critical: the difference in behavior with the other Bitcoin clients can lead to btcd clients accepting an invalid Bitcoin block (or rejecting a valid one). This consensus failure can be leveraged to cause a chain split (accepting an invalid Bitcoin block) or be exploited to DoS the btcd nodes (rejecting a valid Bitcoin block). An attacker can create a standard transaction where FindAndDelete doesn't return a match but removeOpCodeByData does making btcd get a different sighash, leading to a chain split. Importantly, this vulnerability can be exploited remotely by any Bitcoin user and does not require any hash power. This is because the difference in behavior can be triggered by a "standard" Bitcoin transaction, that is a transaction which gets relayed through the P2P network before it gets included in a Bitcoin block. `removeOpcodeByData(script []byte, dataToRemove []byte)` removes any data pushes from `script` that contain `dataToRemove`. However, `FindAndDelete` only removes exact matches. So for example, with `script = "<data> <data||foo>"` and `dataToRemove = "data"` btcd will remove both data pushes but Bitcoin Core's `FindAndDelete` only removes the first `<data>` push. This has been patched in btcd version v0.24.2. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue.

There are packages installed that are affected by a vulnerability referenced in the following CVE:

  - btcd is an alternative full node bitcoin implementation written in Go (golang). The btcd Bitcoin client
    (versions 0.10 to 0.24) did not correctly re-implement Bitcoin Core's "FindAndDelete()" functionality.
    This logic is consensus-critical: the difference in behavior with the other Bitcoin clients can lead to
    btcd clients accepting an invalid Bitcoin block (or rejecting a valid one). This consensus failure can be
    leveraged to cause a chain split (accepting an invalid Bitcoin block) or be exploited to DoS the btcd
    nodes (rejecting a valid Bitcoin block). An attacker can create a standard transaction where FindAndDelete
    doesn't return a match but removeOpCodeByData does making btcd get a different sighash, leading to a chain
    split. Importantly, this vulnerability can be exploited remotely by any Bitcoin user and does not require
    any hash power. This is because the difference in behavior can be triggered by a "standard" Bitcoin
    transaction, that is a transaction which gets relayed through the P2P network before it gets included in a
    Bitcoin block. `removeOpcodeByData(script []byte, dataToRemove []byte)` removes any data pushes from
    `script` that contain `dataToRemove`. However, `FindAndDelete` only removes exact matches. So for example,
    with `script = "<data> <data||foo>"` and `dataToRemove = "data"` btcd will remove both data pushes but
    Bitcoin Core's `FindAndDelete` only removes the first `<data>` push. This has been patched in btcd version
    v0.24.2. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue. (CVE-2024-38365)

The remote SUSE Linux SLES15 / openSUSE 15 host has a package installed that is affected by multiple vulnerabilities as referenced in the SUSE-SU-2024:3911-1 advisory.

    Update to version 0.0.20241030T212825 2024-10-30T21:28:25Z ( jsc#PED-11136 )

    - Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

      * GO-2024-3230 CVE-2024-48921 GHSA-qjvc-p88j-j9rm
      * GO-2024-3232 CVE-2024-10241 GHSA-6mvp-gh77-7vwh

    - Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

      * GO-2024-3226 CVE-2024-47827 GHSA-ghjw-32xw-ffwr
      * GO-2024-3227 CVE-2024-10214 GHSA-hm57-h27x-599c
      * GO-2024-3228 GHSA-wcx9-ccpj-hx3c

    - Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

      * GO-2024-3207 GHSA-p5wf-cmr4-xrwr
      * GO-2024-3208 CVE-2024-47825 GHSA-3wwx-63fv-pfq6
      * GO-2024-3210 CVE-2024-8901
      * GO-2024-3211 CVE-2024-50312
      * GO-2024-3212 GHSA-rjfv-pjvx-mjgv
      * GO-2024-3213 CVE-2024-49380
      * GO-2024-3214 CVE-2024-49381
      * GO-2024-3215 CVE-2024-9264 GHSA-q99m-qcv4-fpm7
      * GO-2024-3216 CVE-2024-49753 GHSA-6cf5-w9h3-4rqv
      * GO-2024-3217 CVE-2024-49757 GHSA-3rmw-76m6-4gjc
      * GO-2024-3219 GHSA-7h65-4p22-39j6
      * GO-2024-3220 CVE-2023-32197 GHSA-7h8m-pvw3-5gh4
      * GO-2024-3221 CVE-2024-22036 GHSA-h99m-6755-rgwc
      * GO-2024-3222 GHSA-x7xj-jvwp-97rv
      * GO-2024-3223 CVE-2022-45157 GHSA-xj7w-r753-vj8v
      * GO-2024-3224 CVE-2024-39223 GHSA-8wxx-35qc-vp6r

    - Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

      * GO-2024-3189 CVE-2024-38365 GHSA-27vh-h6mc-q6g8
      * GO-2024-3203 CVE-2024-9486
      * GO-2024-3204 CVE-2024-9594

    - Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

      * GO-2024-3189 CVE-2024-38365 GHSA-27vh-h6mc-q6g8
      * GO-2024-3196 CVE-2024-47877 GHSA-8rm2-93mq-jqhc
      * GO-2024-3199 GHSA-vv6c-69r6-chg9
      * GO-2024-3200 CVE-2024-48909 GHSA-3c32-4hq9-6wgj
      * GO-2024-3201 CVE-2023-22644
    - Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

      * GO-2024-3166 CVE-2024-47534 GHSA-4f8r-qqr9-fq8j
      * GO-2024-3171 CVE-2024-9341 GHSA-mc76-5925-c5p6

    - Go CVE Numbering Authority IDs added or updated with aliases:

      * GO-2024-3161 CVE-2024-22030 GHSA-h4h5-9833-v2p4
      * GO-2024-3162 CVE-2024-7594 GHSA-jg74-mwgw-v6x3
      * GO-2024-3163 CVE-2024-47182
      * GO-2024-3164 CVE-2024-47003 GHSA-59hf-mpf8-pqjh
      * GO-2024-3166 CVE-2024-47534 GHSA-4f8r-qqr9-fq8j
      * GO-2024-3167 CVE-2024-9355 GHSA-3h3x-2hwv-hr52
      * GO-2024-3168 CVE-2024-8975 GHSA-chqx-36rm-rf8h
      * GO-2024-3169 CVE-2024-9407 GHSA-fhqq-8f65-5xfc
      * GO-2024-3170 CVE-2024-8996 GHSA-m5gv-m5f9-wgv4
      * GO-2024-3172 CVE-2024-33662 GHSA-9mjw-79r6-c9m8
      * GO-2024-3173 CVE-2024-7558 GHSA-mh98-763h-m9v4
      * GO-2024-3174 CVE-2024-8037 GHSA-8v4w-f4r9-7h6x
      * GO-2024-3175 CVE-2024-8038 GHSA-xwgj-vpm9-q2rq
      * GO-2024-3179 CVE-2024-47616 GHSA-r7rh-jww5-5fjr
      * GO-2024-3181 CVE-2024-9313 GHSA-x5q3-c8rm-w787
      * GO-2024-3182 GHSA-wpr2-j6gr-pjw9
      * GO-2024-3184 CVE-2024-36814 GHSA-9cp9-8gw2-8v7m
      * GO-2024-3185 CVE-2024-47832
      * GO-2024-3186 CVE-2024-9675 GHSA-586p-749j-fhwp
      * GO-2024-3188 CVE-2024-9312 GHSA-4gfw-wf7c-w6g2
      * GO-2024-3190 CVE-2024-47067 GHSA-8pph-gfhp-w226
      * GO-2024-3191 CVE-2024-9180 GHSA-rr8j-7w34-xp5j

Tenable has extracted the preceding description block directly from the SUSE security advisory.

Note that Nessus has not tested for these issues but has instead relied only on the application's self-reported version number.

ID	Name	Product	Family	Severity
408779	SCA: security update for github.com/btcsuite/btcd (GHSA-27vh-h6mc-q6g8)	Tenable Cloud Security	SCA Checks	high
408779	SCA: security update for github.com/btcsuite/btcd (GHSA-27vh-h6mc-q6g8)	Tenable Self-Hosted Container Security	SCA Checks	high
210390	SUSE SLES15 / openSUSE 15 Security Update : govulncheck-vulndb (SUSE-SU-2024:3911-1)	Nessus	SuSE Local Security Checks	critical

Detections

Analytics

CVE-2024-38365

high

Tenable Plugins

high

high

critical