Answer in brief
CVE-2021-45698 records a Unknown severity vulnerability in Miner fails to get block template when a cell used as a cell dep has been destroyed.. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. The current feed maps ckb (crates.io). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
Analysis pending evidence review
HOL Guard separates source facts from reviewed analysis. See the methodology.
A CVSS score is not reported in the current record. The current sources do not mark it as known exploited. Treat this as a source-backed prioritization signal, not a statement about your environment.
Analysis status
Analysis pending evidence review
Factual feed record only; HOL analysis is not approved for indexing. Read the methodology.
The current feed maps ckb (crates.io). Check affected ranges and fixed versions before updating.
| Package | Affected range | Fixed version |
|---|---|---|
| ckbcrates.io | >=0.0.0-0 <0.40.0 | 0.40.0 |
Published upstream
Jul 25, 2021
Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:recordSource modified
Oct 12, 2026
Evidence: source:osv:source_dates:source-dates:recordFirst seen by HOL
Oct 12, 2026
## Impact The RPC get_block_template fails when a cell has been used as a cell dep and an input in the different transactions. Say cell C is used as a dep group in the transaction A, and is destroyed in the transaction B. The node adds transaction A first, then B into the transaction pool. They are both valid. But when generating the block template, if the fee rate of B is higher, it comes before A, which will invalidate A. Currently the RPC get_block_template will fail instead of dropping A. ## Patch First, the get_block_template should not fail but dropping the conflict transactions. Then we can propose solution to this issue. Here is an example. When a transaction is added to the pool, the pool must consider it depending on all the transactions which dep cell (direct or indirect via dep group) has been destroyed in this transaction. Because future transactions using the destroyed cells as dep will be rejected, the spending transaction only need to wait for all the existing dep transactions on chain. ## Workaround Submit transaction B when A is already on chain. Let B depend on A explicitly, there are several solutions: a. Add any output cell on A as a dep cell or input in B. b. Merge A and B. CKB allows using the same cell as both dep and input in the same transaction. Ensure the fee rate of B is less than A so A always has higher priority.
Quoted source text, attributed separately from HOL analysis.