CVE Intelligence
High

CVE-2026-59252 — Missing gas_limit validation in mpp Tempo fee-payer enables wallet drain

Improper Validation of Specified Quantity in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to drain the fee-payer wallet, resulting in denial of service for legitimate clients. When the mpp Elixir library is configured as fee payer (fee_payer: true), the MPP.Methods.Tempo payment method co-signs and broadcasts a client-supplied EVM transaction without first validating that the client-supplied gas_limit is sufficient to complete the intended call. A malicious client can submit a signed transferWithMemo transaction with gas_limit deliberately set just below the amount required for successful execution. The server co-signs the transaction and broadcasts it via rpc_broadcast_sync. The transaction runs out of gas during EVM execution and reverts, but the fee-payer wallet is still charged for the burned gas while the client pays nothing and receives no resource. Repeated requests from one or more malicious clients drain the fee-payer wallet at near-zero cost to the attacker, ultimately preventing the server from sponsoring gas for legitimate payment requests. The wait_for_confirmation = false (optimistic) path is also affected: it invokes simulate_payment_call via eth_call, but that simulation omits the gas parameter and therefore does not catch out-of-gas conditions. This issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.6.0.

Published Jul 17, 2026 · Updated Oct 15, 2026 · Sources: NIST National Vulnerability Database, CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP · CNA: EEF

Who exploits it and how urgent it is

A 0–100 score combining confirmed exploitation, ransomware and APT use, public exploits, EPSS and severity.

No exploitation signal in the sources consulted so far.
How the score was calculated
  • Technical severity (high)+6
  • CISA SSVC: exploitation "poc"+5

The score orders the patch queue; it does not replace your asset context (internet exposure, criticality, compensating controls).

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the sources call it.

Exploitation
Not confirmed
Not in CISA KEV — an absence of record, not proof it is unexploited.
EPSS FIRST
—
No EPSS score.
Affects
Zenhive
Mpp
CVSS base
8.2
High · 2 source(s)

CISA SSVC assessment CISA

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses (SSVC 2.0.3). A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

Exploitation
Proof of concept
none · proof-of-concept · active
Automatable
No
can an attacker script the kill-chain steps
Technical impact
Partial
partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Remediation

Fixes and mitigations documented by the sources — linked to the original advisory.

No fix documented by the sources we poll. That does not mean none exists: check the vendor advisory.

First 24 hours

Ordered from the record’s own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found. A rule-generated starting point.

  1. Identify exposed assets running the affected vendor/product/version combinations (Zenhive Mpp).
  2. The attack is network-based and needs no privileges: restrict exposure (ACLs, VPN, WAF) until patched.
  3. No fix documented in the sources: reduce exposure and monitor the vendor advisory.
  4. Search available logs for exploit probes, errors and authentication anomalies.

Affected scope

Vendor, product and versions as the sources word them.

VendorProductVersionsStatusSource
Zenhive Mpp ≥ 0.2.0 and < 0.6.0≥ d29d54e507918db00a5b65d90136b73166c017d7 and < d84e3e528db39654540c2035ea0fbdf7b950d3d1 Vulnerable CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP

Attack characteristics

The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Attack requirements
Present
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
X
Confidentiality (vulnerable system)
None
Integrity (vulnerable system)
None
Availability (vulnerable system)
High
Confidentiality (subsequent)
None
Integrity (subsequent)
None
Availability (subsequent)
None

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and may disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

ScoreVersionSeverityExpl.ImpactScored by
8.2 CVSS 4.0 High — — 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db via NIST National Vulnerability Database
8.2 CVSS 4.0 High — — EEF via CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/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 (score shown at the top: 6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db)

Weakness MITRE

Weakness class according to MITRE’s CWE catalog.

CWE-1284

Other CVEs with this weakness →

Detection

Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not tested rules.

  • Prioritize edge telemetry for the network-reachable component (proxy, WAF, IDS/IPS).
web/proxy/WAF logsnetwork IDS/IPS

Timeline

What happened to this CVE, newest first.

  • 2026
  • Affected products added · zenhive/mpp
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • SSVC assessment updated
    Oct 15, 2026 · CVE Program (cve.org) e CISA ADP
  • Record published
    Oct 15, 2026
  • CVSS changed · 8.2
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Source status changed · → Deferred
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • Record created in this database
    Oct 15, 2026 · NIST National Vulnerability Database
  • CVE published
    Jul 17, 2026 · EEF

Source activity

Repeated readings are counted rather than listed.

  • 1× Official description updated · Oct 15, 2026 – Oct 15, 2026

References

4 on the record

Elsewhere on this site

Zenhive
every CVE for this vendor
CWE-1284
other pages naming this weakness

Related CVEs (same products)

  • CVE-2026-82751 Unbounded key authorization in mpp Tempo fee-payer sponsorship inflates gas cost and sponsors access-key provisioning Sep 6, 2026
  • CVE-2026-82750 Unbounded EIP-7702 authorization list in mpp Tempo fee-payer sponsorship inflates gas cost and sponsors account delegation Sep 6, 2026
  • CVE-2026-73136 Static memo configuration in mpp Tempo disables per-challenge attribution binding, enabling third-party replay Aug 19, 2026
  • CVE-2026-73541 Tempo fee sponsorship in mpp bounds each transaction but not aggregate exposure, allowing concurrent sponsor-wallet drain Aug 19, 2026
  • CVE-2026-73829 Non-atomic hash-credential dedup in mpp Tempo allows replay of a confirmed payment under a concurrent race Aug 19, 2026
  • CVE-2026-67581 On-chain transfer proof is not single-use in mpp EVM payment method, enabling cross-challenge replay Aug 19, 2026

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

  • No FIRST EPSS score.
  • No fixed version, patch or mitigation documented.
  • No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
  • No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
  • No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.

Answered from this record

Text assembled only from the fields above — no additional claims.

What should defenders know first?

CVE-2026-59252 is "Missing gas_limit validation in mpp Tempo fee-payer enables wallet drain", rated High. It affects Mpp (Zenhive); versions are in the scope table. It is not in CISA KEV, which does not rule out exploitation. CVSS 8.2 describes technical severity. First verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run the affected versions, apply vendor fixes or mitigations, and preserve logs for review.

Comments

Moderated technical discussion. Read the community guidelines.

No comments yet.

Sign in or create an account to comment and suggest corrections.