GHSA-qp6f-w4r3-h8wg CVE-2026-34202
Zebra node crash — V5 transaction hash panic (P2P reachable)
- Severity
- 0.0 / 10
- High · CVSS 4.0
- Exploit chance (EPSS)
- 0.79%
- Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 56.33% of scored vulnerabilities.
- Known exploited
- No
- Not in CISA's catalog
- Weakness
- CWE-1336 Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
- CWE-94 Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
- Fix
- Available
- 2 packages have a fixed version
Description
Remote Denial of Service via Crafted V5 Transactions
Summary
A vulnerability in Zebra's transaction processing logic allows a remote, unauthenticated attacker to cause a Zebra node to panic (crash). This is triggered by sending a specially crafted V5 transaction that passes initial deserialization but fails during transaction ID calculation.
Severity
Critical - This is a Remote Denial of Service (DoS) that requires no authentication and can be triggered by a single network message.
Affected Versions
All Zebra versions supporting V5 transactions (Network Upgrade 5 and later) prior to version 4.3.0.
Description
The vulnerability stems from Zebra lazily validating transaction fields that are eagerly validated in the librustzcash parsing logic used when Zebra computes transaction ids and auth digests for V5 transactions where Zebra panics if those computations fail.
PushTransaction messages with malformed V5 transactions are successfully deserialized as the zebra-chain Transaction type by the network codec, but when Zebra converts those transactions into internal types to compute the TxID expecting it to succeed, it triggers a panic/crash.
An attacker can trigger this crash by sending a single crafted tx message to a Zebra node's public P2P port. The same issue can be triggered via the sendrawtransaction RPC method.
Impact
Remote Denial of Service
- Attack Vector: Remote, unauthenticated.
- Effect: Immediate crash of the Zebra node.
- Scope: Any node with an open P2P port (default 8233) or exposed RPC interface is vulnerable.
Fixed Versions
This issue is fixed in Zebra 4.3.0.
The fix ensures that any transaction that would fail TxID calculation is rejected during the initial deserialization phase, and replaces internal panics with graceful error handling.
Mitigation
Users should upgrade to Zebra 4.3.0 or later immediately.
If an immediate upgrade is not possible, users should ensure their RPC port is not exposed to the Internet. However, the P2P port must remain closed or restricted to trusted peers to fully mitigate the risk, which may impact the node's ability to sync with the network.
Credits
Zebra thanks robustfengbin, who discovered this issue and reported it via coordinated disclosure process.
Affected versions
crates.io
| Package | Vulnerable | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
| zebra-chain | < 6.0.1 |
6.0.1 |
| zebrad | < 4.3.0 |
4.3.0 |
How to fix
Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.
zebra-chain crates.io → 6.0.1
- cargo
cargo update -p zebra-chain --precise 6.0.1
zebrad crates.io → 4.3.0
- cargo
cargo update -p zebrad --precise 4.3.0
Severity breakdown
CVSS 4.0 0.0
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Attack requirements
- None
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
- None
- Integrity (vulnerable system)
- None
- Availability (vulnerable system)
- High
- Confidentiality (subsequent systems)
- None
- Integrity (subsequent systems)
- None
- Availability (subsequent systems)
- High
CVSS 3.1 7.5
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality
- None
- Integrity
- None
- Availability
- High
Weakness
CWE-1336: Improper Neutralization of Special Elements Used in a Template Engine
The product uses a template engine to insert or process externally-influenced input, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements or syntax that can be interpreted as template expressions or other code directives when processed by the engine.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Choose a template engine that offers a sandbox or restricted mode, or at least limits the power of any available expressions, function calls, or commands.
- Implementation: Use the template engine's sandbox or restricted mode, if available.
CWE-94: Improper Control of Generation of Code ('Code Injection')
The product constructs all or part of a code segment using externally-influenced input from an upstream component, but it does not neutralize or incorrectly neutralizes special elements that could modify the syntax or behavior of the intended code segment.
How to prevent it
- Architecture and Design: Refactor your program so that you do not have to dynamically generate code.
- Architecture and Design: Run your code in a "jail" or similar sandbox environment that enforces strict boundaries between the process and the operating system. This may effectively restrict which code can be executed by your product. Examples include the Unix chroot jail and AppArmor. In general, managed code may provide some protection. This may not be a feasible solution, and it only limits the impact to the operating system; the rest of your application may still be subject to compromise. Be careful to avoid CWE-243 and other weaknesses related to jails.
- Implementation: Assume all input is malicious. Use an "accept known good" input validation strategy, i.e., use a list of acceptable inputs that strictly conform to specifications. Reject any input that does not strictly conform to specifications, or transform it into something that does. When performing input validation, consider all potentially relevant properties, including length, type of input, the full range of acceptable values, missing or extra inputs, syntax, consistency across related fields, and conformance to business rules. As an example of business rule logic, "boat" may be syntactically valid because it only contains alphanumeric characters, but it is not valid if the input is only expected to contain colors such as "red" or "blue." Do not rely exclusively on looking for malicious or malformed inputs. This is likely to miss at least one undesirable input, especially if the code's environment changes. This can give attackers enough room to bypass the intended validation. However, denylists can be useful for detecting potential attacks or determining which inputs are so malformed that they should be rejected outright. To reduce the likelihood of code injection, use stringent allowlists that limit which constructs are allowed. If you are dynamically constructing code that invokes a function, then verifying that the input is alphanumeric might be insufficient. An attacker might still be able to reference a dangerous function that you did not intend to allow, such as system(), exec(), or exit().
- Testing: Use dynamic tools and techniques that interact with the product using large test suites with many diverse inputs, such as fuzz testing (fuzzing), robustness testing, and fault injection. The product's operation may slow down, but it should not become unstable, crash, or generate incorrect results.
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Operation: Run the code in an environment that performs automatic taint propagation and prevents any command execution that uses tainted variables, such as Perl's "-T" switch. This will force the program to perform validation steps that remove the taint, although you must be careful to correctly validate your inputs so that you do not accidentally mark dangerous inputs as untainted (see CWE-183 and CWE-184).
- Implementation: For Python programs, it is frequently encouraged to use the ast.literal_eval() function instead of eval, since it is intentionally designed to avoid executing code. However, an adversary could still cause excessive memory or stack consumption via deeply nested structures [REF-1372], so the python documentation discourages use of ast.literal_eval() on untrusted data [REF-1373].
References
Advisories
Packages
Other links
Timeline
- Published
- Last updated by the source
- Latest EPSS score
Related advisories
| Advisory | Severity | Why it's related |
|---|---|---|
| GHSA-ww9q-8r59-xv46 Zebra: Missing copy constraint in halo2_gadgets variable-base scalar multiplication allows under-constrained base, breaking Orchard Action circuit soundness | Critical | Also affects zebrad |
| GHSA-63wg-wjjj-7cp8 Zebra Address Book Aborted by IPv4-Mapped Mempool Misbehavior Update | High | Also affects zebrad |
| GHSA-65jj-fmw8-468q zebrad has unbounded memory leak in mempool download pipeline via timeout path cancel_handles retention | Medium | Also affects zebrad |
| GHSA-2gf8-q9rr-jq3h zebrad has persistent on-disk corruption of Sapling/Orchard subtree roots after chain fork via pop_tip | Medium | Also affects zebrad |
| GHSA-hhm7-qrv5-h4r6 Zebra: Repeated Non-Finalized Shielded Transaction Aborts Zebra Before Duplicate-Nullifier Rejection | Medium | Also affects zebrad |
| GHSA-w834-cf6p-9m9w Zebra: Finalized address balance credit-first overflow on consensus-valid blocks | Medium | Also affects zebrad |
| GHSA-gvjc-3w7c-92jx Zebra has sync restart poisoning from single unauthenticated peer via above-lookahead block | Medium | Also affects zebrad |
| GHSA-gf9r-m956-97qx zebrad has consensus divergence via P2SH sigop undercount in pure-Rust disabled-opcode parser | Critical | Also affects zebrad |
MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.
Check your repos with MergeHarbor