FKIE_CVE-2026-59695

Vulnerability from fkie_nvd - Published: 2026-07-17 11:17 - Updated: 2026-10-24 20:10
Severity
8.3 (High) - CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Summary
Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to drain the fee-payer wallet in a single request by naming an arbitrarily high gas price. When the mpp Elixir library is configured as fee payer (fee_payer: true), MPP.Tempo.Transaction.cosign_fee_payer/3 re-signs the client-supplied base fields of the 0x76 AASigned envelope verbatim, including max_fee_per_gas and max_priority_fee_per_gas, without validating that they are within reasonable bounds. A malicious client embeds arbitrarily large values for these fields in the signed envelope. The server co-signs and broadcasts the transaction. The effective_gas_price billed against the fee-payer wallet is derived from the attacker-supplied ceilings, so the server pays those inflated per-gas rates out of its own wallet. A single crafted request can drain the wallet entirely, after which the server can no longer sponsor gas for legitimate payment requests. This issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.6.0.
References
6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49dbhttps://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-59695.html
6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49dbhttps://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/5d6338e2334084c5f2a78cfcca474830733ed7e8
6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49dbhttps://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisories/GHSA-vv77-66rf-pm86
6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49dbhttps://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-59695
134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisories/GHSA-vv77-66rf-pm86
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "affectedData": [
        {
          "collectionURL": "https://repo.hex.pm",
          "cpes": [
            "cpe:2.3:a:ZenHive:mpp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
          ],
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "modules": [
            "\u0027Elixir.MPP.Tempo.Transaction\u0027"
          ],
          "packageName": "mpp",
          "packageURL": "pkg:hex/mpp",
          "product": "mpp",
          "programFiles": [
            "lib/mpp/tempo/transaction.ex"
          ],
          "programRoutines": [
            {
              "name": "\u0027Elixir.MPP.Tempo.Transaction\u0027:cosign_fee_payer/3"
            }
          ],
          "repo": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp",
          "vendor": "ZenHive",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "0.6.0",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "0.2.0",
              "versionType": "semver"
            }
          ]
        },
        {
          "collectionURL": "https://github.com",
          "cpes": [
            "cpe:2.3:a:ZenHive:mpp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
          ],
          "defaultStatus": "unaffected",
          "modules": [
            "\u0027Elixir.MPP.Tempo.Transaction\u0027"
          ],
          "packageName": "ZenHive/mpp",
          "packageURL": "pkg:github/ZenHive/mpp",
          "product": "mpp",
          "programFiles": [
            "lib/mpp/tempo/transaction.ex"
          ],
          "programRoutines": [
            {
              "name": "\u0027Elixir.MPP.Tempo.Transaction\u0027:cosign_fee_payer/3"
            }
          ],
          "repo": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp",
          "vendor": "ZenHive",
          "versions": [
            {
              "lessThan": "5d6338e2334084c5f2a78cfcca474830733ed7e8",
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "d29d54e507918db00a5b65d90136b73166c017d7",
              "versionType": "git"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db"
    }
  ],
  "cveTags": [],
  "descriptions": [
    {
      "lang": "en",
      "value": "Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to drain the fee-payer wallet in a single request by naming an arbitrarily high gas price.\n\nWhen the mpp Elixir library is configured as fee payer (fee_payer: true), MPP.Tempo.Transaction.cosign_fee_payer/3 re-signs the client-supplied base fields of the 0x76 AASigned envelope verbatim, including max_fee_per_gas and max_priority_fee_per_gas, without validating that they are within reasonable bounds. A malicious client embeds arbitrarily large values for these fields in the signed envelope. The server co-signs and broadcasts the transaction. The effective_gas_price billed against the fee-payer wallet is derived from the attacker-supplied ceilings, so the server pays those inflated per-gas rates out of its own wallet. A single crafted request can drain the wallet entirely, after which the server can no longer sponsor gas for legitimate payment requests.\n\nThis issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.6.0."
    },
    {
      "lang": "es",
      "value": "Validaci\u00f3n Incorrecta de Cantidad Especificada en la Entrada en ZenHive mpp permite a un cliente remoto no autenticado vaciar la billetera del pagador de tarifas en una sola solicitud al nombrar un precio de gas arbitrariamente alto.\n\nCuando la biblioteca mpp Elixir est\u00e1 configurada como pagador de tarifas (fee_payer: true), MPP.Tempo.Transaction.cosign_fee_payer/3 vuelve a firmar los campos base proporcionados por el cliente del sobre 0x76 AASigned textualmente, incluyendo max_fee_per_gas y max_priority_fee_per_gas, sin validar que est\u00e9n dentro de l\u00edmites razonables. Un cliente malicioso incrusta valores arbitrariamente grandes para estos campos en el sobre firmado. El servidor co-firma y transmite la transacci\u00f3n. El effective_gas_price facturado a la billetera del pagador de tarifas se deriva de los techos proporcionados por el atacante, por lo que el servidor paga esas tarifas por gas infladas de su propia billetera. Una \u00fanica solicitud manipulada puede vaciar la billetera por completo, despu\u00e9s de lo cual el servidor ya no puede patrocinar gas para solicitudes de pago leg\u00edtimas.\n\nEste problema afecta a mpp: desde 0.2.0 antes de 0.6.0."
    }
  ],
  "id": "CVE-2026-59695",
  "lastModified": "2026-10-24T20:10:00.137",
  "metrics": {
    "cvssMetricV40": [
      {
        "cvssData": {
          "Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "baseScore": 8.3,
          "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
          "confidentialityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "exploitMaturity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "integrityRequirement": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackComplexity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackRequirements": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedAttackVector": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedPrivilegesRequired": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedSubIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedUserInteraction": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "providerUrgency": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "subAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "subConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "subIntegrityImpact": "NONE",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "valueDensity": "NOT_DEFINED",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:X",
          "version": "4.0",
          "vulnAvailabilityImpact": "HIGH",
          "vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "vulnIntegrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
        },
        "source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
        "type": "Secondary"
      }
    ],
    "ssvcV203": [
      {
        "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
        "ssvcData": {
          "id": "CVE-2026-59695",
          "options": [
            {
              "exploitation": "poc"
            },
            {
              "automatable": "no"
            },
            {
              "technicalImpact": "total"
            }
          ],
          "role": "CISA Coordinator",
          "timestamp": "2026-07-17T12:53:10.647332Z",
          "version": "2.0.3"
        }
      }
    ]
  },
  "published": "2026-07-17T11:17:14.117",
  "references": [
    {
      "source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
      "url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-59695.html"
    },
    {
      "source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/5d6338e2334084c5f2a78cfcca474830733ed7e8"
    },
    {
      "source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisories/GHSA-vv77-66rf-pm86"
    },
    {
      "source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
      "url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-59695"
    },
    {
      "source": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisories/GHSA-vv77-66rf-pm86"
    }
  ],
  "sourceIdentifier": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
  "vulnStatus": "Deferred",
  "weaknesses": [
    {
      "description": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "CWE-1284"
        }
      ],
      "source": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
      "type": "Secondary"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON
How durations are calculated

Following the VTEM framework (Black Hat USA 2015), time to patch starts when the vendor or a coordinator was informed, total time to patch at discovery, and disclosure to patch at public disclosure; vendor response time runs from the report to its acknowledgement. Time to exploit and time unpatched start at the earliest discovery or report, falling back to public disclosure. Unpatched time ends at the first recorded patch, or the calculation time when no patch is recorded. Exploitation to patch shows the interval between those two events; a published proof of concept is a public exploit, not exploitation.

Each result shows its source dates. A negative interval means the end event came first; when date-only inputs leave the order open, the result says so. Date-only inputs are approximate. The earliest evidence wins: KEV report dates and sightings are labelled as such. Records describing another vulnerability are listed but never calculated from, and a PoC alone does not establish exploitation. Missing patch evidence does not prove that no patch exists. Filters below change the event list only.

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.