GHSA-6V7F-H3QG-WWPP

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-07-17 12:31 – Updated: 2026-07-17 12:31
VLAI
Details

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.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2026-59695"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-1284"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2026-07-17T11:17:14Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "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.",
  "id": "GHSA-6v7f-h3qg-wwpp",
  "modified": "2026-07-17T12:31:29Z",
  "published": "2026-07-17T12:31:29Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisories/GHSA-vv77-66rf-pm86"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2026-59695"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/5d6338e2334084c5f2a78cfcca474830733ed7e8"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-59695.html"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-59695"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "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",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ]
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

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.

Loading…

Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.

Loading…

Loading…