CVE-2026-35468
Nimiq Proof-Of-Stake ≤ 1.2.2
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:LSummary
CVE-2026-35468 is a medium-severity Unchecked Return Value (CWE-252) vulnerability in Nimiq Nimiq Proof-Of-Stake. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Exploitation for Privilege Escalation (T1068); ranked at the 42th 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 SA-15 (Development Process, Standards, and Tools) — 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-2026-35468 is a denial-of-service vulnerability in nimiq/core-rs-albatross, a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, two peer-facing consensus request handlers incorrectly assume the history index is always available, directly calling blockchain.history_store.history_index().unwrap(). This assumption fails because HistoryStoreProxy::history_index() returns None in the valid HistoryStoreProxy::WithoutIndex state, such as when a full node is syncing or operating without the index. The issue corresponds to CWE-252 (Unchecked Return Value) and carries a CVSS v3.1 base score of 5.3 (AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L).
A remote, unauthenticated attacker can exploit this vulnerability by sending RequestTransactionsProof or RequestTransactionReceiptsByAddress messages to a vulnerable full node in the specified state. This triggers an Option::unwrap() panic in the request handling path, causing the node to crash and temporarily disrupting availability.
The vulnerability has been addressed in version 1.3.0 of nimiq/core-rs-albatross. Security practitioners should upgrade to this patched release, as detailed in the project's security advisory (GHSA-xr78-2jhh-9wf9), the associated pull request (#3667), commit (0e5c90a6c75b722f3d6091769776a4040e694dba), and release notes.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-18929
Vulnerability Data
nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.3.0, two peer-facing consensus request handlers assume that the history index is always available and call blockchain.history_store.history_index().unwrap() directly. That assumption is…
more
false by construction. HistoryStoreProxy::history_index() explicitly returns None for the valid HistoryStoreProxy::WithoutIndex state. when a full node is syncing or otherwise running without the history index, a remote peer can send RequestTransactionsProof or RequestTransactionReceiptsByAddress and trigger an Option::unwrap() panic on the request path. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Developer testing and code evaluation can discover instances where return values are ignored.
Requiring a documented development process and coding standards can mandate explicit checking of all function return values.
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.
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.
Secure system architecture and engineering principles require robust error handling and defensive coding practices.
Secure coding explicitly requires checking return values to avoid CWE-252.