Noticed this in my code review: https://petertodd.org/2016/segwit-consensus-critical-code-review#peer-to-peer-networking

Basically it looks like an attacker may be able to send nodes transactions with malleated witness data, which we don't consistently mark as possibly corrupted in AcceptToMemoryPool(). Result would be those txids being added to recentRejects, messing up propagation.

That said, I haven't actually tested this yet; about to go off to a conference, so if someone else wants to confirm for me that'd be much appreciated! Or if I'm wrong you're welcome to all laugh at my expense. :)

CC: @sdaftuar @sipa 

{
    strMiscWarning = strMessage;
    LogPrintf("*** %s\n", strMessage);
    uiInterface.ThreadSafeMessageBox(
        userMessage.empty() ? _("Error: A fatal internal error occurred, see debug.log for details") : userMessage,
        "", CClientUIInterface::MSG_ERROR);
    StartShutdown();
    return false;
}
bool AbortNode(CValidationState& state, const std::string& strMessage, const std::string& userMessage="")
{
    AbortNode(strMessage, userMessage);
    return state.Error(strMessage);
}
} 
/**
 * Apply the undo operation of a CTxInUndo to the given chain state.
 * @param undo The undo object.
 * @param view The coins view to which to apply the changes.
 * @param out The out point that corresponds to the tx input.
 * @return True on success.
 */
static bool ApplyTxInUndo(const CTxInUndo& undo, CCoinsViewCache& view, const COutPoint& out)