CVE-2026-34065
Nimiq Proof-Of-Stake ≤ 1.3.0
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:HSummary
CVE-2026-34065 is a high-severity Unchecked Return Value (CWE-252) vulnerability in Nimiq Nimiq Proof-Of-Stake. Its CVSS base score is 7.5 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 30th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SC-24 (Fail in Known State) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
Deeper analysis AI-assisted summary
Synthesised by an AI model from the NVD description and linked references — a reading aid, not an authoritative source.
CVE-2026-34065 is a vulnerability in the nimiq-primitives crate, which provides primitives such as blocks, accounts, and transactions for Nimiq's Rust implementation, specifically in versions prior to 1.3.0. An untrusted P2P peer can trigger a node panic by announcing an election macro block whose validators set includes an invalid compressed BLS voting key. The issue arises during hashing of the election macro header, which invokes `Validators::voting_keys()` and subsequently `validator.voting_key.uncompress().unwrap()`, panicking on invalid bytes. It is associated with CWE-252 (Unchecked Return Value) and CWE-755 (Improper Handling of Exceptional Conditions), with a CVSS v3.1 base score of 7.5.
The attack requires only network access to an affected node, with no authentication, privileges, or user interaction needed (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N). An attacker connected via P2P can send a specially crafted election macro block announcement, causing the node to crash and resulting in a denial-of-service condition due to high availability impact (A:H), with no confidentiality or integrity effects (C:N/I:N).
Mitigation is provided by upgrading to version 1.3.0 of core-rs-albatross, which includes the patch via commit e10eaebcd7774e5da6d0ff5e88ed13503474f0ff and pull request #3662. No workarounds are available, as stated in the GitHub security advisory GHSA-7c4j-2m43-2mgh and release notes.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-25062
Vulnerability Data
nimiq-primitives contains primitives (e.g., block, account, transaction) to be used in Nimiq's Rust implementation. Prior to version 1.3.0, an untrusted p2p peer can cause a node to panic by announcing an election macro block whose `validators` set contains an invalid…
more
compressed BLS voting key. Hashing an election macro header hashes `validators` and reaches `Validators::voting_keys()`, which calls `validator.voting_key.uncompress().unwrap()` and panics on invalid bytes. The patch for this vulnerability is included as part of v1.3.0. No known workarounds are available.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
- 1 hardening rule · 1 OS baseline
—
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and code evaluation can discover instances where return values are ignored.
Requires the system to fail to a known safe state on specified failures, limiting the impact of unhandled exceptional conditions.
Mandates explicit fail-safe procedures triggered by indicated failures, structurally preventing unhandled or mishandled exceptional conditions.
Requiring a documented development process and coding standards can mandate explicit checking of all function return values.
Requires generation of appropriate error messages on exceptional conditions, directly enforcing correct handling rather than silent or incorrect behavior.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly require checking and handling all function return values to detect error conditions.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect missing return-value checks.
Documented operating procedures may specify exception handling but do not guarantee implementation.
Logging captures unhandled exceptions, aiding detection but not preventing the weakness.
Monitoring can surface unhandled exceptions but does not enforce proper handling.
Secure development life cycle mandates verification of return values to prevent undetected failures.
Application security requirements include input/output validation and error handling that covers return-value checks.