Skip to content

CVE-2026-34061

Is CVE-2026-34061 real, exploitable, or a false positive? Here's the community verdict.

signals

public sources

Exploited in wild
Not listed
CISA KEV
Public exploit
None known
Metasploit/EDB/PoC
Base severity
4.9 Medium
CVSS
Exploitation prob.
0.2%
FIRST EPSS
Weakness
CWE-345
CWE

Moderate signals. Triage by your actual exposure and reachability.

baseline read

auto · not a community verdict

Officially disputed

The CVE record itself is disputed or rejected upstream — a strong candidate for a false positive in scanners. Confirm with a verdict.

Based on NVD record status

Confirm or dispute →
Affected:Nimiq

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

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, an elected validator proposer can send an election macro block whose header.interlink does not match the canonical next interlink. Honest validators accept that proposal in verify_macro_block_proposal() because the proposal path validates header shape, successor relation, proposer, body root, and state, but never checks the interlink binding for election blocks. The same finalized block is later rejected by verify_block() during push with InvalidInterlink. Because validators prevote and precommit the malformed header hash itself, the failure happens after Tendermint decides the block, not before voting. This issue has been patched in version 1.3.0.

Published

Embed this verdict
TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-34061
Markdown
[![TruePositive verdict](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-34061/badge.svg)](https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-34061)
HTML
<a href="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-34061"><img src="https://www.truepositive.app/cve/CVE-2026-34061/badge.svg" alt="TruePositive verdict for CVE-2026-34061"></a>

Live badge that updates automatically as the community verdict changes.

Community ground truth

Be the first practitioner to weigh in

So far this is only TruePositive's editorial baseline from public sources. Add your real-world verdict below — it becomes the signal the next person triaging this relies on.

🥇 The first 50 practitioners to contribute earn a Founding Contributor badge.

In your experience, is this finding real and exploitable?

awaiting field verdicts
Real, but not a risk here
Not a real issue

Curated baseline: A curated baseline from public sources, shown separately from community verdicts.

No account needed. Anonymous verdicts post as an unverified signal. Log in to make yours verified and earn reputation.

Field notes & remediation

Verdicts are the quick signal. Notes are the evidence and fixes behind them.

  • 0
    Field note · TruePositive EditorialCurated

    No confirmed in-the-wild exploitation or public exploit was found for this yet.

Add a field note or remediationoptional
Note type

What are you adding?

Markdown supported · minimum 20 characters.

Same weakness: CWE-345.