VulnerabilityPublished 25 Feb 2026Updated 27 Feb 2026

CVE-2026-3193: Chia Blockchain · Cross-Site Request Forgery

Affects Chia BlockchainSource CVE Database V5

Compare

Public exploit available · CVSS 2.3 Low.

Data as of 30 Oct 2026, 06:59 UTC

CVSS 4.0 base score

2.3Low

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

EPSS: 0.2% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 16% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:H/AT:N/PR:N/UI:P/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:P

Base metrics

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Attack Requirements: None
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: Passive
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None
Vulnerable system integrity: Low
Vulnerable system availability: None
Subsequent system confidentiality: None
Subsequent system integrity: None
Subsequent system availability: None

Threat metrics

Exploit Maturity: POC

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

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable system is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed below, 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: High: The successful attack depends on the evasion or circumvention of security-enhancing techniques in place that would otherwise hinder the attack. These include: Evasion of exploit mitigation techniques, for example, circumvention of address space randomization (ASLR) or data execution prevention (DEP) must be performed for the attack to be successful; Obtaining target-specific secrets. The attacker must gather some target-specific secret before the attack can be successful. A secret is any piece of information that cannot be obtained through any amount of reconnaissance. To obtain the secret the attacker must perform additional attacks or break otherwise secure measures (e.g. knowledge of a secret key may be needed to break a crypto channel). This operation must be performed for each attacked target.
Attack Requirements: None: The successful attack does not depend on the deployment and execution conditions of the vulnerable system. The attacker can expect to be able to reach the vulnerability and execute the exploit under all or most instances of the vulnerability.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files of the vulnerable system to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: Passive: Successful exploitation of this vulnerability requires limited interaction by the targeted user with the vulnerable system and the attacker’s payload. These interactions would be considered involuntary and do not require that the user actively subvert protections built into the vulnerable system.
Vulnerable system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system 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 to the Vulnerable System.
Vulnerable system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the Subsequent System or all confidentiality impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system integrity: None: There is no loss of integrity within the Subsequent System or all integrity impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Subsequent system availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the Subsequent System or all availability impact is constrained to the Vulnerable System.
Exploit Maturity: POC: Based on threat intelligence sources each of the following must apply: · Proof-of-concept is publicly available · No knowledge of reported attempts to exploit this vulnerability · No knowledge of publicly available solutions used to simplify attempts to exploit the vulnerability

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v4.0 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 25 Feb 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: evidence found.
CVSS exploit maturity: proof of concept public
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), CVSS vector, the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 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

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
ChiaBlockchain	Affected =2.1.0	Fixed in–
GitHubdanimlzg/chia-rpc-auth-bypass`pkg:github/danimlzg/chia-rpc-auth-bypass`Other threats	Affected =2.1.0	Fixed in–

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

AI-suggested

To mitigate this CSRF vulnerability, organizations should implement strict CSRF protections on the /send_transaction endpoint and any other transaction-related interfaces. This includes using anti-CSRF tokens that are validated on the server side for every state-changing request. Additionally, enforcing same-site cookies with the 'Strict' or 'Lax' attribute can reduce CSRF risks by limiting cookie transmission to same-site contexts. User education is critical to avoid interaction with untrusted sites while authenticated to the blockchain interface. Network segmentation and host hardening can reduce the risk of compromise. Monitoring and logging transaction requests for unusual patterns may help detect exploitation attempts. If possible, upgrading to a newer version of Chia Blockchain that addresses this issue or applying vendor patches when available is recommended. In the absence of vendor fixes, deploying web application firewalls (WAFs) with custom rules to detect and block CSRF attempts can provide additional protection. Finally, restricting access to the blockchain interface to trusted networks or VPNs can limit exposure.

Description

A vulnerability was detected in Chia Blockchain 2.1.0. Impacted is an unknown function of the file /send_transaction. The manipulation results in cross-site request forgery. The attack may be performed from remote. The attack requires a high level of complexity. The exploitability is considered difficult. The exploit is now public and may be used. The vendor was informed early via email. A separate report via bugbounty was rejected with the reason "This is by design. The user is responsible for host security".

Impact

The primary impact of this vulnerability is the potential unauthorized initiation of blockchain transactions by tricking authenticated users into submitting malicious requests. This could lead to unintended transfer of assets or manipulation of blockchain state, potentially causing financial loss or disruption of operations relying on Chia Blockchain. However, the high complexity and requirement for user interaction limit the likelihood of widespread exploitation. The low CVSS score reflects limited confidentiality and availability impact, with only low integrity impact. Organizations relying on Chia Blockchain 2.1.0 may face risks if users are tricked into interacting with malicious sites, especially in environments where host security is weak. The lack of vendor patching means organizations must rely on compensating controls. While no active exploits are known, the public disclosure increases the risk of future attacks. Overall, the impact is moderate for organizations with exposed user interfaces and less secure user environments, but limited for hardened or isolated deployments.

Summary

CVE-2026-3193 identifies a cross-site request forgery vulnerability in the Chia Blockchain software version 2.1.0, specifically within an unspecified function tied to the /send_transaction endpoint. CSRF vulnerabilities occur when an attacker tricks an authenticated user into submitting unintended requests to a web application, leveraging the user's active session and privileges. In this case, the vulnerability could allow a remote attacker to cause a user to unknowingly initiate blockchain transactions without their consent. The attack complexity is high due to the need for user interaction and crafting specific requests, and no authentication is required by the attacker, though the victim must be authenticated. The vendor's stance is that this behavior is by design, emphasizing user responsibility for host security, which suggests that no immediate patch or fix is planned. The CVSS 4.0 vector indicates network attack vector (AV:N), high attack complexity (AC:H), no privileges required (PR:N), user interaction required (UI:P), and low impact on integrity (VI:L), with no impact on confidentiality or availability. This results in a low overall severity score of 2.3. While no known exploits are currently in the wild, the public availability of the exploit details means attackers could develop proof-of-concept attacks. The vulnerability highlights the importance of CSRF protections in blockchain transaction endpoints, especially those exposed via web interfaces.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 5 Mar 2026, 09:51 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats