Author

Topic: US Computer Emergency Readiness Team / nist.gov publish 2year old bitcoin vulns (Read 1236 times)

hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.
Maybe it took 2 years for the bureaucracy to decide that Bitcoin was ok for them to comment on or publish about. That could be a good sign. Or it's part of a new ramping up of disinformation against Bitcoin.

NIST is about as close as you can get to a "friendly government" in the US. Their findings are of course in the public domain, but also - unlike many other agencies - in most cases directly applicable to real life.

Unless new information emerges soon, I'd call this a good sign, even if it's slow and confusing in some ways.
hero member
Activity: 784
Merit: 1009
firstbits:1MinerQ
Maybe it took 2 years for the bureaucracy to decide that Bitcoin was ok for them to comment on or publish about. That could be a good sign. Or it's part of a new ramping up of disinformation against Bitcoin.
rjk
sr. member
Activity: 448
Merit: 250
1ngldh
Those CVE numbers were issued a while back, but I guess they only just got around to publishing the actual vulnerability?
hero member
Activity: 756
Merit: 501
There is more to Bitcoin than bitcoins.
Good catch, julz. I have mixed feelings about this, but currently lean towards "great!" - essentially, a US government agency is recommending Bitcoin users to upgrade to the latest clients. 
Bitcoin is listed there with the likes of Cisco. I like.
legendary
Activity: 1092
Merit: 1001
http://www.us-cert.gov/cas/bulletins/SB12-226.html

http://web.nvd.nist.gov/view/vuln/detail?vulnId=CVE-2010-5139

which references the discussion thread: https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/strange-block-74638-822


Why now?  Is it standard practice to release such old warnings?

With wording like:
"allows remote attackers to bypass intended economic restrictions and create many bitcoins via a crafted Bitcoin transaction."
and
"Impact Type:Allows unauthorized disclosure of information; Allows unauthorized modification; Allows disruption of service"

It's potentially damaging If people don't notice how old it is I would have thought.
Jump to: