← Back

Multiversx

multiversx

2 CVEs • 1 product

Products (1)

Click to collapse
Toggle
Mx Chain Go
mx-chain-go

CVEs (2)

CVE
VENDORS
PRODUCTS
UPDATED
PUBLISHED
CVSS
1Multiversx
1Mx Chain Go
Nov 21, 2024
Jul 13, 2023
N/A· v4
5.3 MEDIUM· v3
N/A· v2
mx-chain-go is the official implementation of the MultiversX blockchain protocol, written in golang. When executing a relayed transaction, if the inner transaction failed, it would have increased the inner transaction's...Show more
mx-chain-go is the official implementation of the MultiversX blockchain protocol, written in golang. When executing a relayed transaction, if the inner transaction failed, it would have increased the inner transaction's sender account nonce. This could have contributed to a limited DoS attack on a targeted account. The fix is a breaking change so a new flag `RelayedNonceFixEnableEpoch` was needed. This was a strict processing issue while validating blocks on a chain. This vulnerability has been patched in version 1.4.17.Show less
1Multiversx
1Mx Chain Go
Nov 21, 2024
May 31, 2023
N/A· v4
7.5 HIGH· v3
N/A· v2
mx-chain-go is an implementation of the MultiversX blockchain protocol written in the Go language. Metachain cannot process a cross-shard miniblock. Prior to version 1.4.16, an invalid transaction with the wrong username...Show more
mx-chain-go is an implementation of the MultiversX blockchain protocol written in the Go language. Metachain cannot process a cross-shard miniblock. Prior to version 1.4.16, an invalid transaction with the wrong username on metachain is not treated correctly on the metachain transaction processor. This is strictly a processing issue that could have happened on MultiversX chain. If an error like this had occurred, the metachain would have stopped notarizing blocks from the shard chains. The resuming of notarization is possible only after applying a patched binary version. A patch in version 1.4.16 introduces `processIfTxErrorCrossShard` for the metachain transaction processor. There are no known workarounds for this issue. Show less