<p>There could also be hacks targeting the bitcoin software implementation. If a vulerability is applicable to software running on majority (>50% hashrate) of the nodes then it is a real threat.</p>

<p>For example lets say someone can craft a mal-formed transaction that somehow can trick >50% nodes to accept it (for example induce a buffer overflow and somehow allow attacker to gain remote access to the node system itself and make modifications) then bad things will happen.</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-07T03:47:49.777Z
Hmm, so do you mean Dan Kaminsky (and various hackers) deemed the official bitcoin software implementation released to be flawless?
Pacerier
CC BY-SA 3.0
2017-03-15T23:33:58.180Z
@Pacerier There's a distinction between not finding any issues and there being no issues to find.
Nick ODell
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-04T23:53:44.757Z
2014-03-04T23:53:44.757Z
uminatsu
<p>Dan Kaminsky said that he spent 4 months <a href="http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-kaminsky-highlights-flaws-bitcoin-2013-4?IR=T&amp;" rel="nofollow noreferrer">trying to hack "bitcoin"</a> but failed.</p>

<p>Besides trying to find vulnerabilities in <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/421/1475">double-spending</a> and <a href="https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/1061/1475">51% attack</a>, what other hacks would a hacker try to achieve?</p>

<p>Surely an established hacker like Dan Kaminsky wouldn't have spent 4 months just trying to prove the protocol is immune to double-spending and robust against 51% attacks. There had got to be more things that he was trying.</p>

<p>Exactly what kind of hacks will a hacker try to achieve against bitcoin?</p>

CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-04T10:03:02.123Z
@Murch, Isn't this what I linked to in the question?... *"Besides the obvious problem of double-spending, exactly what kind of hacks were he trying to achieve?"*
Pacerier
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-04T10:10:22.357Z
I don't see where your question differs significantly from the linked, i.e. while the question is phrased a bit different, the answers to the linked question seem to cover your question as well. Could you please highlight/clarify which additional information you are seeking?
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-04T11:57:35.490Z
@Murch, Surely Dan Kaminsky did not spend 4 months only trying to prove the protocol is immune to double-spending and robust against 51% attacks. There got to be more things that he was trying. Exactly what kind of hacks were he trying to achieve?
Pacerier
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-04T14:55:40.277Z
Alright, thank you for clarifying. I have retracted my close vote but would like to suggest that you consider editing your question to reflect your intent more clearly.
Murch
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-05T13:00:31.700Z
@NateEldredge, Any established hacker would be able to answer this question.
Pacerier
CC BY-SA 3.0
2014-03-05T14:23:22.600Z
Now that you've reworded, I agree.
Nate Eldredge
<protocol><hacking>
In what ways could "bitcoin" be hacked?
Pacerier
# In what ways could "bitcoin" be hacked?

(Asked by: username_0 on 2014-03-04)

Dan Kaminsky said that he spent 4 months [trying to hack "bitcoin"](http://www.businessinsider.com/dan-kaminsky-highlights-flaws-bitcoin-2013-4?IR=T&) but failed.

Besides trying to find vulnerabilities in [double-spending](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/421/1475) and [51% attack](https://bitcoin.stackexchange.com/q/1061/1475), what other hacks would a hacker try to achieve?

Surely an established hacker like Dan Kaminsky wouldn't have spent 4 months just trying to prove the protocol is immune to double-spending and robust against 51% attacks. There had got to be more things that he was trying.

Exactly what kind of hacks will a hacker try to achieve against bitcoin?

**Tags:** protocol, hacking

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: @username_1, Isn't this what I linked to in the question?... *"Besides the obvious problem of double-spending, exactly what kind of hacks were he trying to achieve?"*  
> **username_1**: I don't see where your question differs significantly from the linked, i.e. while the question is phrased a bit different, the answers to the linked question seem to cover your question as well. Could you please highlight/clarify which additional information you are seeking?  
> **username_0**: @username_1, Surely Dan Kaminsky did not spend 4 months only trying to prove the protocol is immune to double-spending and robust against 51% attacks. There got to be more things that he was trying. Exactly what kind of hacks were he trying to achieve?  
> **username_1**: Alright, thank you for clarifying. I have retracted my close vote but would like to suggest that you consider editing your question to reflect your intent more clearly.  
> **username_0**: @username_2, Any established hacker would be able to answer this question.  
> **username_2**: Now that you've reworded, I agree.  

---

## 1 answers

### Answer by username_3 on 2014-03-04. Score: 1

There could also be hacks targeting the bitcoin software implementation. If a vulerability is applicable to software running on majority (>50% hashrate) of the nodes then it is a real threat.

For example lets say someone can craft a mal-formed transaction that somehow can trick >50% nodes to accept it (for example induce a buffer overflow and somehow allow attacker to gain remote access to the node system itself and make modifications) then bad things will happen.

> **Comments:**
> **username_0**: Hmm, so do you mean Dan Kaminsky (and various hackers) deemed the official bitcoin software implementation released to be flawless?  
> **username_4**: @username_0 There's a distinction between not finding any issues and there being no issues to find.  

---

