CVE-2026-88255 (GCVE-0-2026-88255)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2026-09-16 08:24 – Updated: 2026-09-16 08:24
VLAI
EPSS
VEX
Title
mpp Tempo keys its pre-broadcast dedup reserve on the caller-supplied transaction encoding, so a re-encoded signed transaction reserves a second slot
Summary
Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to pass the Tempo duplicate-submission gate twice with one signed transaction.
MPP.Methods.Tempo reserves the pre-broadcast dedup slot on the caller-supplied hex in reserve_hash_atomic/2, keyed through store_key/1 on tx.raw rather than on a canonical form of the transaction. The deserializer stores the caller's hex verbatim and accepts both recovery-id encodings, so one signed transaction submitted once with v=27 and once with v=0 yields two distinct reserve keys, and both pass the reserve and reach the broadcast path. The plug-level credential replay store is deliberately carved out for tempo in lib/mpp/replay.ex, leaving this reserve as the only gate, and the post-broadcast mark writes the canonical hash key that the raw-keyed reserve never reads.
What the duplicate submission yields depends on the node: a nonce-reuse rejection fails closed, while a node that answers with the canonical hash for an already-known transaction returns a second valid Payment-Receipt for a single on-chain payment.
This issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.16.2.
Severity
CWE
- CWE-1289 - Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input
Assigner
References
5 references
| URL | Tags |
|---|---|
| https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisorie… | relatedvendor-advisory |
| https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-88255.html | related |
| https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-88255 | related |
| https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/f8904666061… | related |
| https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/e12bd4a1cea… | patch |
Impacted products
{
"containers": {
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"collectionURL": "https://repo.hex.pm",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:ZenHive:mpp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.MPP.Methods.Tempo\u0027"
],
"packageName": "mpp",
"packageURL": "pkg:hex/mpp",
"product": "mpp",
"programFiles": [
"lib/mpp/methods/tempo.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.MPP.Methods.Tempo\u0027:verify/2"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp",
"vendor": "ZenHive",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "0.16.2",
"status": "affected",
"version": "0.2.0",
"versionType": "semver"
}
]
},
{
"collectionURL": "https://github.com",
"cpes": [
"cpe:2.3:a:ZenHive:mpp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*"
],
"defaultStatus": "unaffected",
"modules": [
"\u0027Elixir.MPP.Methods.Tempo\u0027"
],
"packageName": "zenhive/mpp",
"packageURL": "pkg:github/zenhive/mpp",
"product": "mpp",
"programFiles": [
"lib/mpp/methods/tempo.ex"
],
"programRoutines": [
{
"name": "\u0027Elixir.MPP.Methods.Tempo\u0027:verify/2"
}
],
"repo": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp",
"vendor": "ZenHive",
"versions": [
{
"lessThan": "e12bd4a1cea2e97c2a01fc059c48e5594a7b4a43",
"status": "affected",
"version": "f8904666061fbab695874856d8fcd02c471dfe1b",
"versionType": "git"
}
]
}
],
"configurations": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eReachable when \u003ccode\u003eMPP.Methods.Tempo\u003c/code\u003e broadcasts a \u003ccode\u003etype=\"transaction\"\u003c/code\u003e credential with a dedup store in place. From mpp 0.7.0 the dedup store is on by default (the app-started \u003ccode\u003eMPP.Tempo.ConCacheStore\u003c/code\u003e; opt out with \u003ccode\u003estore: false\u003c/code\u003e), so every default Tempo deployment from 0.7.0 before 0.16.2 is affected. Before 0.7.0 the default store was \u003ccode\u003enil\u003c/code\u003e, which runs the library statelessly and provides no application-level replay protection at all, a documented property rather than part of this issue; those versions are affected only where a \u003ccode\u003e\"store\"\u003c/code\u003e was configured explicitly in \u003ccode\u003emethod_config\u003c/code\u003e.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "Reachable when `MPP.Methods.Tempo` broadcasts a `type=\"transaction\"` credential with a dedup store in place. From mpp 0.7.0 the dedup store is on by default (the app-started `MPP.Tempo.ConCacheStore`; opt out with `store: false`), so every default Tempo deployment from 0.7.0 before 0.16.2 is affected. Before 0.7.0 the default store was `nil`, which runs the library statelessly and provides no application-level replay protection at all, a documented property rather than part of this issue; those versions are affected only where a `\"store\"` was configured explicitly in `method_config`."
}
],
"value": "Reachable when MPP.Methods.Tempo broadcasts a type=\"transaction\" credential with a dedup store in place. From mpp 0.7.0 the dedup store is on by default (the app-started MPP.Tempo.ConCacheStore; opt out with store: false), so every default Tempo deployment from 0.7.0 before 0.16.2 is affected. Before 0.7.0 the default store was nil, which runs the library statelessly and provides no application-level replay protection at all, a documented property rather than part of this issue; those versions are affected only where a \"store\" was configured explicitly in method_config."
}
],
"cpeApplicability": [
{
"nodes": [
{
"cpeMatch": [
{
"criteria": "cpe:2.3:a:ZenHive:mpp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"versionEndExcluding": "0.16.2",
"versionStartIncluding": "0.2.0",
"vulnerable": true
}
],
"negate": false,
"operator": "OR"
}
],
"operator": "AND"
}
],
"credits": [
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "finder",
"value": "E.FU"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "remediation developer",
"value": "E.FU"
},
{
"lang": "en",
"type": "coordinator",
"value": "Jonatan M\u00e4nnchen / EEF"
}
],
"dateAssigned": "2026-09-15T15:20:56.000Z",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eImproper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to pass the Tempo duplicate-submission gate twice with one signed transaction.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003e\u003ccode\u003eMPP.Methods.Tempo\u003c/code\u003e reserves the pre-broadcast dedup slot on the caller-supplied hex in \u003ccode\u003ereserve_hash_atomic/2\u003c/code\u003e, keyed through \u003ccode\u003estore_key/1\u003c/code\u003e on \u003ccode\u003etx.raw\u003c/code\u003e rather than on a canonical form of the transaction. The deserializer stores the caller\u0027s hex verbatim and accepts both recovery-id encodings, so one signed transaction submitted once with \u003ccode\u003ev=27\u003c/code\u003e and once with \u003ccode\u003ev=0\u003c/code\u003e yields two distinct reserve keys, and both pass the reserve and reach the broadcast path. The plug-level credential replay store is deliberately carved out for \u003ccode\u003etempo\u003c/code\u003e in \u003ccode\u003elib/mpp/replay.ex\u003c/code\u003e, leaving this reserve as the only gate, and the post-broadcast mark writes the canonical hash key that the raw-keyed reserve never reads.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eWhat the duplicate submission yields depends on the node: a nonce-reuse rejection fails closed, while a node that answers with the canonical hash for an already-known transaction returns a second valid \u003ccode\u003ePayment-Receipt\u003c/code\u003e for a single on-chain payment.\u003c/p\u003e\n\u003cp\u003eThis issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.16.2.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to pass the Tempo duplicate-submission gate twice with one signed transaction.\n\n`MPP.Methods.Tempo` reserves the pre-broadcast dedup slot on the caller-supplied hex in `reserve_hash_atomic/2`, keyed through `store_key/1` on `tx.raw` rather than on a canonical form of the transaction. The deserializer stores the caller\u0027s hex verbatim and accepts both recovery-id encodings, so one signed transaction submitted once with `v=27` and once with `v=0` yields two distinct reserve keys, and both pass the reserve and reach the broadcast path. The plug-level credential replay store is deliberately carved out for `tempo` in `lib/mpp/replay.ex`, leaving this reserve as the only gate, and the post-broadcast mark writes the canonical hash key that the raw-keyed reserve never reads.\n\nWhat the duplicate submission yields depends on the node: a nonce-reuse rejection fails closed, while a node that answers with the canonical hash for an already-known transaction returns a second valid `Payment-Receipt` for a single on-chain payment.\n\nThis issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.16.2."
}
],
"value": "Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to pass the Tempo duplicate-submission gate twice with one signed transaction.\n\nMPP.Methods.Tempo reserves the pre-broadcast dedup slot on the caller-supplied hex in reserve_hash_atomic/2, keyed through store_key/1 on tx.raw rather than on a canonical form of the transaction. The deserializer stores the caller\u0027s hex verbatim and accepts both recovery-id encodings, so one signed transaction submitted once with v=27 and once with v=0 yields two distinct reserve keys, and both pass the reserve and reach the broadcast path. The plug-level credential replay store is deliberately carved out for tempo in lib/mpp/replay.ex, leaving this reserve as the only gate, and the post-broadcast mark writes the canonical hash key that the raw-keyed reserve never reads.\n\nWhat the duplicate submission yields depends on the node: a nonce-reuse rejection fails closed, while a node that answers with the canonical hash for an already-known transaction returns a second valid Payment-Receipt for a single on-chain payment.\n\nThis issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.16.2."
}
],
"impacts": [
{
"capecId": "CAPEC-267",
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"supportingMedia": [
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/html",
"value": "\u003cp\u003eA client re-encodes the recovery id of a transaction it has already submitted and presents it again. The duplicate passes the only duplicate-submission gate the Tempo method has, and against a node that answers with the canonical hash for an already-known transaction the client is issued a second \u003ccode\u003ePayment-Receipt\u003c/code\u003e for one on-chain payment.\u003c/p\u003e"
},
{
"base64": false,
"type": "text/markdown",
"value": "A client re-encodes the recovery id of a transaction it has already submitted and presents it again. The duplicate passes the only duplicate-submission gate the Tempo method has, and against a node that answers with the canonical hash for an already-known transaction the client is issued a second `Payment-Receipt` for one on-chain payment."
}
],
"value": "A client re-encodes the recovery id of a transaction it has already submitted and presents it again. The duplicate passes the only duplicate-submission gate the Tempo method has, and against a node that answers with the canonical hash for an already-known transaction the client is issued a second Payment-Receipt for one on-chain payment."
}
]
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV4_0": {
"Automatable": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Recovery": "NOT_DEFINED",
"Safety": "NOT_DEFINED",
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackRequirements": "PRESENT",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"baseScore": 6.3,
"baseSeverity": "MEDIUM",
"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:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"version": "4.0",
"vulnAvailabilityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnConfidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"vulnIntegrityImpact": "LOW",
"vulnerabilityResponseEffort": "NOT_DEFINED"
},
"format": "CVSS",
"scenarios": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "GENERAL"
}
]
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-1289",
"description": "CWE-1289 Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-16T08:24:40.446Z",
"orgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"shortName": "EEF"
},
"references": [
{
"name": "GitHub Advisory",
"tags": [
"related",
"vendor-advisory"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisories/GHSA-8x7x-5j8g-8hcx"
},
{
"name": "EEF CNA record for CVE-2026-88255",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-88255.html"
},
{
"name": "OSV record EEF-CVE-2026-88255",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-88255"
},
{
"name": "Introducing commit f890466 in ZenHive/mpp",
"tags": [
"related"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/f8904666061fbab695874856d8fcd02c471dfe1b"
},
{
"name": "Fix commit e12bd4a in ZenHive/mpp",
"tags": [
"patch"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/e12bd4a1cea2e97c2a01fc059c48e5594a7b4a43"
}
],
"source": {
"discovery": "INTERNAL"
},
"title": "mpp Tempo keys its pre-broadcast dedup reserve on the caller-supplied transaction encoding, so a re-encoded signed transaction reserves a second slot"
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db",
"assignerShortName": "EEF",
"cveId": "CVE-2026-88255",
"datePublished": "2026-09-16T08:24:40.446Z",
"dateReserved": "2026-09-11T18:30:01.336Z",
"dateUpdated": "2026-09-16T08:24:40.446Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.2",
"vulnerability-lookup:meta": {
"nvd": "{\"cve\":{\"id\":\"CVE-2026-88255\",\"sourceIdentifier\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\",\"published\":\"2026-09-16T09:17:07.333\",\"lastModified\":\"2026-09-16T09:17:07.333\",\"vulnStatus\":\"Received\",\"cveTags\":[],\"descriptions\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"Improper Validation of Unsafe Equivalence in Input in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated remote client to pass the Tempo duplicate-submission gate twice with one signed transaction.\\n\\nMPP.Methods.Tempo reserves the pre-broadcast dedup slot on the caller-supplied hex in reserve_hash_atomic/2, keyed through store_key/1 on tx.raw rather than on a canonical form of the transaction. The deserializer stores the caller\u0027s hex verbatim and accepts both recovery-id encodings, so one signed transaction submitted once with v=27 and once with v=0 yields two distinct reserve keys, and both pass the reserve and reach the broadcast path. The plug-level credential replay store is deliberately carved out for tempo in lib/mpp/replay.ex, leaving this reserve as the only gate, and the post-broadcast mark writes the canonical hash key that the raw-keyed reserve never reads.\\n\\nWhat the duplicate submission yields depends on the node: a nonce-reuse rejection fails closed, while a node that answers with the canonical hash for an already-known transaction returns a second valid Payment-Receipt for a single on-chain payment.\\n\\nThis issue affects mpp: from 0.2.0 before 0.16.2.\"}],\"affected\":[{\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\",\"affectedData\":[{\"vendor\":\"ZenHive\",\"product\":\"mpp\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"collectionURL\":\"https://repo.hex.pm\",\"packageName\":\"mpp\",\"cpes\":[\"cpe:2.3:a:ZenHive:mpp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\"],\"modules\":[\"\u0027Elixir.MPP.Methods.Tempo\u0027\"],\"programFiles\":[\"lib/mpp/methods/tempo.ex\"],\"programRoutines\":[{\"name\":\"\u0027Elixir.MPP.Methods.Tempo\u0027:verify/2\"}],\"repo\":\"https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp\",\"packageURL\":\"pkg:hex/mpp\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"0.2.0\",\"lessThan\":\"0.16.2\",\"versionType\":\"semver\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]},{\"vendor\":\"ZenHive\",\"product\":\"mpp\",\"defaultStatus\":\"unaffected\",\"collectionURL\":\"https://github.com\",\"packageName\":\"zenhive/mpp\",\"cpes\":[\"cpe:2.3:a:ZenHive:mpp:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*\"],\"modules\":[\"\u0027Elixir.MPP.Methods.Tempo\u0027\"],\"programFiles\":[\"lib/mpp/methods/tempo.ex\"],\"programRoutines\":[{\"name\":\"\u0027Elixir.MPP.Methods.Tempo\u0027:verify/2\"}],\"repo\":\"https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp\",\"packageURL\":\"pkg:github/zenhive/mpp\",\"versions\":[{\"version\":\"f8904666061fbab695874856d8fcd02c471dfe1b\",\"lessThan\":\"e12bd4a1cea2e97c2a01fc059c48e5594a7b4a43\",\"versionType\":\"git\",\"status\":\"affected\"}]}]}],\"metrics\":{\"cvssMetricV40\":[{\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"cvssData\":{\"version\":\"4.0\",\"vectorString\":\"CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/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\",\"baseScore\":6.3,\"baseSeverity\":\"MEDIUM\",\"attackVector\":\"NETWORK\",\"attackComplexity\":\"LOW\",\"attackRequirements\":\"PRESENT\",\"privilegesRequired\":\"NONE\",\"userInteraction\":\"NONE\",\"vulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"vulnIntegrityImpact\":\"LOW\",\"vulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subConfidentialityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subIntegrityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"subAvailabilityImpact\":\"NONE\",\"exploitMaturity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"confidentialityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"integrityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"availabilityRequirement\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackVector\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackComplexity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedAttackRequirements\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedPrivilegesRequired\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedUserInteraction\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedVulnAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubConfidentialityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubIntegrityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"modifiedSubAvailabilityImpact\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Safety\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Automatable\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"Recovery\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"valueDensity\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"vulnerabilityResponseEffort\":\"NOT_DEFINED\",\"providerUrgency\":\"NOT_DEFINED\"}}]},\"weaknesses\":[{\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\",\"type\":\"Secondary\",\"description\":[{\"lang\":\"en\",\"value\":\"CWE-1289\"}]}],\"references\":[{\"url\":\"https://cna.erlef.org/cves/CVE-2026-88255.html\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/e12bd4a1cea2e97c2a01fc059c48e5594a7b4a43\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/f8904666061fbab695874856d8fcd02c471dfe1b\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"},{\"url\":\"https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisories/GHSA-8x7x-5j8g-8hcx\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"},{\"url\":\"https://osv.dev/vulnerability/EEF-CVE-2026-88255\",\"source\":\"6b3ad84c-e1a6-4bf7-a703-f496b71e49db\"}]}}"
}
}
Loading…
Loading…
Experimental. This forecast is provided for visualization only and may change without notice. Do not use it for operational decisions.
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…
The MITRE ATT&CK techniques below are AI-generated suggestions, inferred from the description of the
vulnerability by the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-classification-roberta-base
model, served locally by ML-Gateway.
They have not been verified by an analyst and are provided for guidance only.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Loading…
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.
Loading…