- Exploited
- No known exploitation
- Fix
- Fixed in 0.8.5, 0.9.0-beta.7.0
- Who is exposed
- Not reported
Do first: Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.8.5, 0.9.0-beta.7.0.
- Last modified
- Whether it needs action now or is a reference record, by fixed rules, with why. Last checked is when cve.now last re-read it.What do these mean? →
- Reference
- Last checked
- A 0-100 score for how much a CVE matters across the industry: exploitation, exposure, how widely the software is used, severity and whether a fix exists.What do these mean? →
- 10/100 · provisional
- Whether working attack code is public (Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei or GitHub). Public code makes attacks easier.What do these mean? →
- None on Exploit-DB, Metasploit or GitHub
Summary
The bsv-rs package's transaction readers accept bytes after the end of a transaction and keep the full input as its serialization, so an attacker who supplies bytes or hex to an application that parses them can make the transaction report a different id while keeping the same parsed fields. Applications that only parse bytes they produced or have already checked are not affected.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
Read the original description
Transaction::from_binary and Transaction::from_hex read one transaction from the front of their input, did not check that the input ended there, and kept the whole input as the transaction's cached serialization: to_binary, to_hex and id() then answered for bytes that are not the transaction's. Transaction::from_json, given a hex field, reads it through from_hex and answers the same. from_ef, from_hex_ef and parse_script_offsets also read a prefix.
An application that takes bytes or hex from outside, parses them with these readers and then uses id() or the serialization could be given one transaction under another identity: the same parsed fields, a different id. An application that passes them only bytes it produced or has already checked is not affected.
0.8.5 refuses a byte after the transaction; Transaction::from_reader reads from the front of a longer buffer. Where upgrading is not possible, parse with Transaction::from_binary, call tx.invalidate_caches() (public from 0.3.16) and require tx.to_binary() == bytes.
cve.now Index
- Exploitation?/40Unknown. No CISA SSVC exploitation rating yet
- Exposure?/25Unknown. No advisory context yet
- Reach10/20Affects crates.io packages
- Severity?/10Unknown. No CVSS score or vendor rating
- No patch0/5No signal
What would change the score
- Would score about 65 if added to CISA KEV
- Would score about 60 if CISA's SSVC rates exploitation active
- Would score about 32 if advisories confirm default setups are exposed
What to do
Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.8.5, 0.9.0-beta.7.0.
Check your systems with an agent
Paste this into a coding or ops agent. It checks your systems read-only and reports a table per asset.
Check whether my systems are affected by RUSTSEC-2026-0498 (Transaction readers accept trailing bytes, so a parsed transaction can carry another transaction id), using the cve.now data below.
Rules: work read-only. Do not run exploit code, proof-of-concept scripts or scanners that send attack payloads, and do not change any configuration, package, image or deployment. Report findings only.
What cve.now has for RUSTSEC-2026-0498 (entry last updated 2026-11-12):
Affected:
- crates.io package bsv-rs: from 0.0.0-0, fixed in 0.8.5; from 0.9.0-beta.1, fixed in 0.9.0-beta.7.0
Fixed versions: 0.8.5, 0.9.0-beta.7.0.
Setup: unknown whether the bug needs a non-default feature or setting. Check the advisory.
CISA KEV: RUSTSEC-2026-0498 is not listed as of cve.now's last read.
This KEV status is for RUSTSEC-2026-0498 only. If you also check another CVE, look up its own KEV status; never assume it from this one.
How to check:
- Packages (crates.io): find every lockfile in each project and run the stack.check operation of the cve.now MCP server (execute) on each one. Compare the resolved versions, not the ranges a manifest declares, with the affected versions above. Include transitive dependencies.
Verify against the linked advisories before concluding, and cite the date you read each one:
- https://rustsec.org/advisories/RUSTSEC-2026-0498.html
- https://github.com/Calhooon/bsv-rs/issues/840
- https://crates.io/crates/bsv-rs
- https://github.com/Calhooon/bsv-rs/blob/v0.8.5/CHANGELOG.md
Do not conclude an asset is unaffected unless you checked it and the evidence covers both its version and the conditions above. If you could not check something, mark it unknown and say what is missing.
Report a table with one row per asset and these columns: Asset | Version or build | Status (affected, fixed, not applicable, unknown) | Compensating controls | Exposure (internet-facing, internal, none) | Evidence | Next action.
Entry: https://cve.now/RUSTSEC-2026-0498
For follow-up questions, use the cve.now MCP server at https://mcp.cve.now/mcp (no authentication), for example execute with name cve.get and arguments {"id": "RUSTSEC-2026-0498"}.Timeline
- Advisory published2 days
- First seen by cve.now
- Record last updated
Affected versions
- bsv-rscrates.io
From 0.0.0-0 · fixed in 0.8.5; From 0.9.0-beta.1 · fixed in 0.9.0-beta.7.0
Evidence 4
Other links · 4
- Advisory
- Report
- Repository
- Link
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about RUSTSEC-2026-0498
Is RUSTSEC-2026-0498 being exploited?
It is not in CISA's Known Exploited Vulnerabilities catalog, and CISA's SSVC assessment does not mark exploitation as active. That does not mean it has not been attacked: vendors and researchers can report attacks before CISA lists them. No public exploit code is tracked.Source: cve.now feed data
Which versions are affected by RUSTSEC-2026-0498?
bsv-rs (crates.io): from 0.0.0-0 before 0.8.5; from 0.9.0-beta.1 before 0.9.0-beta.7.0.Source: cve.now feed data
How do I fix RUSTSEC-2026-0498?
Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.8.5, 0.9.0-beta.7.0.Source: cve.now feed data