Skip to content

Zebra node crash — V5 transaction hash panic (P2P reachable)

Critical severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 27, 2026 in ZcashFoundation/zebra • Updated Mar 31, 2026

Package

cargo zebra-chain (Rust)

Affected versions

< 6.0.1

Patched versions

6.0.1
cargo zebrad (Rust)
< 4.3.0
4.3.0

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.

References

@alchemydc alchemydc published to ZcashFoundation/zebra Mar 27, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 27, 2026
Reviewed Mar 27, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 31, 2026
Last updated Mar 31, 2026

Severity

Critical

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements None
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
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

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(41st percentile)

Weaknesses

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. Learn more on MITRE.

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. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-34202

GHSA ID

GHSA-qp6f-w4r3-h8wg

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.