VulnerabilityPublished 27 Feb 2026Updated 3 Mar 2026

CVE-2026-28402: nimiq core-rs-albatross · Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value

Affects nimiq core-rs-albatrossSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.1 High : upgrade to 1.2.2 soon.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 11:52 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.1High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 13% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 1.2.2

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:H

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: Low
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: Low
Availability: High

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: Low: The attacker is authorized with (i.e., requires) privileges that provide basic user capabilities that could normally affect only settings and files owned by a user. Alternatively, an attacker with Low privileges may have the ability to cause an impact only to non-sensitive resources.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: High: There is total loss of availability, resulting in the attacker being able to fully deny access to resources in the impacted component; this loss is either sustained (while the attacker continues to deliver the attack) or persistent (the condition persists even after the attack has completed). Alternatively, the attacker has the ability to deny some availability, but the loss of availability presents a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component (e.g., the attacker cannot disrupt existing connections, but can prevent new connections; the attacker can repeatedly exploit a vulnerability that, in each instance of a successful attack, leaks a only small amount of memory, but after repeated exploitation causes a service to become completely unavailable).

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 27 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 30 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade core-rs-albatross and github/nimiq/core-rs-albatross to 1.2.2.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
nimiqcore-rs-albatross	Affected <1.2.2	Fixed in 1.2.2
crates.iogithub/nimiq/core-rs-albatross`pkg:cargo/github/nimiq/core-rs-albatross`Other threats	Affected <1.2.2	Fixed in 1.2.2

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

The primary mitigation is to upgrade all validator nodes running the nimiq/core-rs-albatross software to version 1.2.2 or later, which includes the patch that enforces the integrity check between header.body_root and the macro body hash. Validator operators should prioritize this upgrade to prevent potential crashes from malformed macro block proposals. Additionally, operators should implement strict security controls to prevent validator node compromise, including hardened host configurations, secure key management, and network segmentation to reduce the risk of malicious insiders or external attackers gaining proposer privileges. Monitoring validator node logs for unexpected panics or crashes can help detect exploitation attempts. Since no workarounds exist, maintaining up-to-date backups and failover validator nodes can improve resilience. Network-level protections, such as filtering or rate limiting proposals from suspicious validators, may help but require coordination within the validator community. Finally, validator operators should stay informed of updates from the Nimiq project and apply security patches promptly.

Description

nimiq/core-rs-albatross is a Rust implementation of the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake protocol based on the Albatross consensus algorithm. Prior to version 1.2.2, a malicious or compromised validator that is elected as proposer can publish a macro block proposal where `header.body_root` does not match the actual macro body hash. The proposal can pass proposal verification because the macro proposal verification path validates the header but does not validate the binding `body_root == hash(body)`; later code expects this binding and may panic on mismatch, crashing validators. Note that the impact is only for validator nodes. The patch for this vulnerability is formally released as part of v1.2.2. The patch adds the corresponding body root verification in the proposal checks. No known workarounds are available.

Impact

This vulnerability primarily impacts validator nodes participating in the Nimiq Proof-of-Stake network using the core-rs-albatross implementation before version 1.2.2. A successful exploit can cause targeted validator nodes to crash, resulting in denial of service. This reduces the number of active validators, potentially weakening network consensus stability and resilience. While it does not directly compromise confidentiality or integrity of blockchain data, the availability impact can disrupt validator operations and delay block finalization. In a worst-case scenario, if multiple validators are compromised or maliciously exploited, it could degrade network performance or open avenues for further consensus manipulation attacks. Organizations running validator infrastructure face operational risks, including downtime, loss of staking rewards, and reputational damage. Since the attack requires the attacker to be an elected proposer, the threat is limited to insiders or compromised validator nodes rather than external unauthenticated attackers. However, the ease of exploitation (low complexity) and network attack vector mean that once a validator is compromised, exploitation is straightforward. The lack of workarounds means patching is the only effective mitigation. Overall, the threat poses a significant availability risk to validator operators and the stability of the Nimiq blockchain network.

CWE-354Improper Validation of Integrity Check Value (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: Medium
The product does not validate or incorrectly validates the integrity check values or "checksums" of a message.
Implementation
The protocol specification describes the algorithm used for calculating the checksum. It is then a matter of implementing the calculation and verifying that the calculated checksum and the received checksum match.
OWASP Cheat Sheets
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
REST Security (opens in a new tab)
JSON Web Token for Java (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V11.1.7 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.2 (opens in a new tab)
V3.5.3 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Checksum Spoofing (opens in a new tab)
Padding Oracle Crypto Attack (opens in a new tab)
Manipulating Writeable Configuration Files (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 7 Mar 2026, 21:13 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-354

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats