2026-01-09 11:19:40

Security researchers have identified a noteworthy issue in the Babylon Bitcoin staking protocol.

Specifically, there is a logical flaw in the BLS voting extension (block signature) mechanism. Malicious validators can intentionally skip the block hash field when submitting their voting extension, leaving out this essential parameter. It may sound minor, but it is actually quite serious.

Why is this vulnerability so dangerous? Primarily because the block hash field is a critical component used to verify that votes are correctly pointed to the intended block. Allowing validators to omit it undermines the integrity of the verification process. During each epoch cycle of network operation, bad actors could exploit this loophole to perform improper actions, potentially causing the validation mechanism to fail, disrupting consensus, or improperly exercising certain voting rights.

This type of issue is quite serious for the Bitcoin staking ecosystem — it directly threatens the assumption of validator honesty. Fortunately, this vulnerability has been proactively disclosed by the developers, giving the community the opportunity to promptly fix and review it.

BTC1,46%

View Original

This page may contain third-party content, which is provided for information purposes only (not representations/warranties) and should not be considered as an endorsement of its views by Gate, nor as financial or professional advice. See Disclaimer for details.

22 Likes

Reward
22
9
Repost
Share

Comment

0/400

MissedAirdropBro

· 01-12 11:10

Damn, this vulnerability is clearly a ticking time bomb. You really shouldn't mess with staking protocols that drop the ball.

View OriginalReply0

ForkMonger

· 01-12 10:52

lmao babylon's governance attack surface just keeps expanding... skipping block hash validation? that's literally protocol darwinism in action. validators playing fast & loose with core verification mechanics—exactly the kind of systemic vulnerability that separates survivor forks from the graveyard. ngl, these BLS signature gaps are chef's kiss for chaos theorists.

Reply0

LightningLady

· 01-12 10:19

Another one of these basic vulnerabilities... How did such an obvious bug slip through?

View OriginalReply0

FarmHopper

· 01-12 03:31

Uh, another basic vulnerability... Can validators skip even the hash? --- Babylon really needs to be patched quickly, or who will dare to stake? --- The staking protocol is so flawed that no one will want to play anymore. --- If malicious users exploit this to cause trouble, the consequences could be disastrous. --- At least it was voluntarily disclosed, so it's not too bad... just needs to be fixed quickly. --- That's why I've never been very confident about staking.

View OriginalReply0

BearMarketGardener

· 01-09 11:47

Another basic vulnerability... Validators can even omit required fields? --- Is Babylon testing us? Can the hash fields be skipped? --- Fortunately, it was discovered early, or else it would have caused a big fuss --- This is why security audits cannot be skipped, buddy --- The verification mechanism is broken, consensus collapses... sounds unbelievable --- The good news is that it was disclosed proactively; the bad news is how could such a fundamental vulnerability go unnoticed --- Bad actors have new tricks up their sleeves, need to be cautious --- Just missing a hash field can break the entire process? That design is way too fragile --- Still waiting for the community to fix it; in the meantime, we should just observe quietly --- It seems we need to re-evaluate the BLS voting part

View OriginalReply0

BearHugger

· 01-09 11:46

Wow, this is why developers keep doing code reviews repeatedly.

View OriginalReply0

RetiredMiner

· 01-09 11:37

It's the validators causing trouble again. This mechanism design is way too casual.

View OriginalReply0

DYORMaster

· 01-09 11:29

Another such basic vulnerability, I really don't know how the audit was conducted. Babylon was indeed not cautious enough this time; they could even omit block hashes? The Bitcoin ecosystem still needs to find a few more serious security teams. Such logical flaws should be discovered and fixed early; don't let them cause issues online. If the verification mechanism can be broken this easily, the trust foundation is gone. At least they disclosed proactively; otherwise, the consequences would be endless.

View OriginalReply0

OnChainDetective

· 01-09 11:22

omg not the missing block hash field again... this is literally textbook validator dishonesty waiting to happen. babylon really dodged a bullet here with early disclosure but ngl, pattern recognition tells me there's probably more lurking in the codebase. always is with staking protocols.

Reply0