- 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 can wrongly report that a raw entry which is not exactly one transaction is valid, and can treat the hash of those bytes as a proven transaction ID. This affects applications that pass unparsed bytes to `merge_raw_tx` or `BeefTx::from_raw_tx` and then rely on the validity result or the transaction returned.
Written by anthropic/claude-haiku-5.5 from the sources below. Verify against them.
Read the original description
Beef::merge_raw_tx and BeefTx::from_raw_tx accept raw bytes without a Result. For bytes that are not exactly one transaction (a transaction followed by bytes, a cut transaction, bytes that are no transaction at all), Beef::sort_txs, verify_structure, verify_valid and is_valid could answer valid, even with no BUMP and no parent in the BEEF, and, where the entry carried a BUMP index, treat the hash of those bytes as a proven transaction id; an entry that names it as a parent was answered valid too.
The wire readers (Beef::from_binary, verify_stream, Transaction::from_beef, from_atomic_beef) parse every entry and are not affected. Reaching this needs an application that passes bytes it did not parse to merge_raw_tx or BeefTx::from_raw_tx and then relies on the verdict or on the transaction the BEEF hands back.
0.8.5 refuses such an entry at all four verdict doors, with or without a BUMP index, and every entry that names it as a parent. Where upgrading is not possible, do not rely on is_valid or verify_valid alone for such an entry: check that the bytes are exactly one transaction before merging them.
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-2026-0500 (BEEF validation answers valid for a raw entry that is not a transaction), 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-2026-0500 (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-2026-0500 is not listed as of cve.now's last read.
This KEV status is for RUSTSEC-2026-0500 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-2026-0500.html
- https://crates.io/crates/bsv-rs
- https://github.com/Calhooon/bsv-rs/blob/v0.8.5/CHANGELOG.md
- https://github.com/Calhooon/bsv-rs/pull/852
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-2026-0500
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-2026-0500"}.Timeline
- Advisory published2 days
- Record last updated
- First seen by cve.now
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
- Repository
- Repository
- Link
Corrections
None so far.
Something wrong on this page? Report an error. Every fix is listed here.
Questions about RUSTSEC-2026-0500
Is RUSTSEC-2026-0500 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-2026-0500?
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-2026-0500?
Upgrade to a fixed version: 0.8.5, 0.9.0-beta.7.0.Source: cve.now feed data