You are affected if:
zebrad up to and including v4.4.1.network.listen_addr is set, which is the default).All default configurations are affected.
Zebra records a block hash in non_finalized_block_write_sent_hashes when the block is sent to the write task, before contextual validation completes. If validation fails, the hash is not removed. A remote unauthenticated peer can deliver a poisoned block body that shares a header hash with a later valid canonical block. The poisoned body is rejected, but the hash remains cached. When the valid canonical block arrives, Zebra treats it as a duplicate and rejects it. The node cannot advance past that height until restart or a reorg event.
ZIP-244 defines txid_v5 without binding transparent input scriptSig, which lives in auth_digest and is committed to by hashBlockCommitments in the block header. Because merkle_root is computed over txids (not auth digests), and the block hash is computed over the header, an attacker can construct two blocks with identical header hashes but different transaction bodies by mutating the coinbase scriptSig.
The attack flow over P2P:
inv to the target node.getdata; attacker serves the poisoned body.non_finalized_block_write_sent_hashes before validation.block_commitment_is_valid_for_chain_history (auth_data_root mismatch).non_finalized_block_write_sent_hashes.queue_and_commit_to_non_finalized_state sees the hash in the cache and returns KnownBlock::WriteChannel duplicate.A secondary variant exists where chain pruning (via MAX_NON_FINALIZED_CHAIN_FORKS) removes a chain from chain_set but leaves its block hashes in non_finalized_block_write_sent_hashes, producing the same lockout for children of the pruned fork.
Patched in Zebra 4.4.2. The fix removes stale entries from non_finalized_block_write_sent_hashes on every failed non-finalized write path.
There is no complete configuration-level workaround. Reducing the node's inbound peer count (network.peerset_initial_target_size) narrows the attack surface but does not eliminate it. Restarting the node clears the in-memory cache and allows the valid block to be re-fetched.
A remote unauthenticated P2P peer can permanently stall a targeted Zebra node at a specific block height. The node diverges from the network tip; downstream consumers (lightwalletd, wallets, explorers, mining infrastructure) relying on the node see a stalled chain. The attack requires winning a propagation race: delivering the poisoned block body before honest peers deliver the canonical block. A well-positioned attacker (low-latency connection to the target, observation of new blocks from other peers) can reliably win this race. In sustained form, the attacker repeats for each new block, keeping the target permanently behind.
Recovery requires restarting the node (which clears the in-memory sent-hash cache) or waiting for a reorg at the affected height (rare on the canonical chain).
Reported independently by @ipwning (primary, with ZIP-244 malleability analysis and zcashd cross-reference) and @x15-eth (first reporter, with E2E reproduction and control experiment).
| Software | From | Fixed in |
|---|---|---|
zebra-state
|
- | 7.0.0 |
zebrad
|
- | 4.5.0 |
A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.
CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.
A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.
Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.
Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.
SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.