GHSA-QPXH-FF8M-C62V

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2026-09-25 21:45 – Updated: 2026-09-25 21:45
VLAI
Summary
mpp vulnerable to Gas Draining with access list
Details

Details

When the server acts as the fee_payer, mpp Elixir 0.4.0 copies the client-supplied EIP-2930 access list verbatim into the cosigned fee-payer transaction. In cosign_fee_payer, the server re-signs the raw base_fields (index 5 of the 0x76 AASigned envelope) without inspecting the access list field, which is part of the signed payload.

Access list gas is charged intrinsically — before any opcode executes — regardless of whether the listed addresses are ever touched.

An attacker submits a valid transferWithMemo alongside fabricated address-only access list entries. The server validates calldata and amount but never inspects access_list length. It cosigns and broadcasts a transaction that costs the fee-payer wallet N × 2,400 extra gas per request with no corresponding work performed on-chain.

At the default of 137 entries and 100 Gwei max_fee_per_gas, this inflates the fee-payer cost from the normal ~51,287 gas to ~380,087 gas — a 7.4× multiplier — while staying within Bandit's default 10,000-byte per-header-field limit (verified empirically).

PoC

The PoC is provided below. It is configured to reproduce the attack on Tempo Moderate testnet within a Docker environment. Download the PoC and run:

unzip mpp_elixir_PoC.zip
cd mpp_elixir
docker build -t mpp-elixir-access-list .
docker run --rm mpp-elixir-access-list

There are more details in mpp_elixir/README.md

Impact

A malicious client can force the server to pay ~7.4x the normal transaction fee. This dramatically increases operational costs and completely destroys the profit margin on low-cost items.

Show details on source website

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "Hex",
        "name": "mpp"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0.2.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.6.0"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-20"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2026-09-25T21:45:16Z",
    "nvd_published_at": null,
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Details\nWhen the server acts as the fee_payer, `mpp` Elixir 0.4.0 copies the client-supplied EIP-2930 access list verbatim into the cosigned fee-payer transaction. In `cosign_fee_payer`, the server re-signs the raw `base_fields` (index 5 of the 0x76 AASigned envelope) without inspecting the access list field, which is part of the signed payload.\n\nAccess list gas is charged **intrinsically** \u2014 before any opcode executes \u2014 regardless of whether the listed addresses are ever touched.\n\nAn attacker submits a valid `transferWithMemo` alongside fabricated address-only access list entries. The server validates calldata and amount but never inspects `access_list` length. It cosigns and broadcasts a transaction that costs the fee-payer wallet `N \u00d7 2,400` extra gas per request with no corresponding work performed on-chain.\n\nAt the default of 137 entries and 100 Gwei `max_fee_per_gas`, this inflates the fee-payer cost from the normal ~51,287 gas to ~380,087 gas \u2014 a **7.4\u00d7 multiplier** \u2014 while staying within Bandit\u0027s default 10,000-byte per-header-field limit (verified empirically).\n\n### PoC\nThe PoC is provided below. It is configured to reproduce the attack on Tempo Moderate testnet within a Docker environment. Download the PoC and run:\n```bash\nunzip mpp_elixir_PoC.zip\ncd mpp_elixir\ndocker build -t mpp-elixir-access-list .\ndocker run --rm mpp-elixir-access-list\n``` \nThere are more details in `mpp_elixir/README.md`\n\n### Impact\nA malicious client can force the server to pay ~**7.4x** the normal transaction fee. This dramatically increases operational costs and completely destroys the profit margin on low-cost items.",
  "id": "GHSA-qpxh-ff8m-c62v",
  "modified": "2026-09-25T21:45:16Z",
  "published": "2026-09-25T21:45:16Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/security/advisories/GHSA-qpxh-ff8m-c62v"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/commit/5d6338e2334084c5f2a78cfcca474830733ed7e8"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/ZenHive/mpp/releases/tag/v0.6.0"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "mpp vulnerable to Gas Draining with access list"
}



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…

Loading…

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…