user29432: Regarding the serious bug found (CVE-2018-17144) I am note sure if I understand the full scope of it correctly.
As far as I understand, any block containing a double-spend of a transaction output that was spend in any block prior to the mined one would not have been catched as an invalid block?
If that is the case I wonder if the test suite of bitcoin core does not have a test case implemented for this situation?

user52021: There are tests for that.  The specifically broken pattern was a block containing a single transaction spending the same output, which originated from an earlier block, twice. Testing it without putting it in a block, or splitting up the double spend across multiple transactions weren't sufficient tests.

29432: <p>Regarding the serious bug found (CVE-2018-17144) I am note sure if I understand the full scope of it correctly.</p>

<p>As far as I understand, any block containing a double-spend of a transaction output that was spend in any block prior to the mined one would not have been catched as an invalid block?</p>

<p>If that is the case I wonder if the test suite of bitcoin core does not have a test case implemented for this situation?</p>
 52021: <p>There are tests for that.  The specifically broken pattern was a block containing a single transaction spending the same output, which originated from an earlier block, twice. Testing it without putting it in a block, or splitting up the double spend across multiple transactions weren't sufficient tests.</p>
