CVE-2026-52739

Am I affected

You are affected if:

1. You run zebrad up to and including v4.4.1.
2. Your node processes blocks past the checkpoint height (non-finalized state is active).
3. The network has NU5 or later activated.

All default configurations are affected.

Chain::push in the non-finalized state updates the transaction-location index (tx_loc_by_hash) before it runs the duplicate shielded-nullifier guard. When an invalid child block repeats a shielded transaction from its non-finalized parent, the assert_eq!(prior_pair, None, "transactions must be unique within a single chain") fires before the contextual validation that would cleanly reject the duplicate. Under Zebra's panic = "abort" release profile, this terminates the entire node process.

The block should be rejected with a duplicate-nullifier contextual validation error. Instead, the ordering of index updates within Chain::push causes the process to abort.

Details

In zebra-state/src/service/non_finalized_state/chain.rs:1608-1628, the block push sequence is:

1. Insert transaction hash into tx_loc_by_hash with assert_eq! on uniqueness
2. Update transparent outputs and inputs
3. Update shielded data (JoinSplit, Sapling, Orchard), including nullifier uniqueness checks

The shielded nullifier uniqueness check at step 3 would correctly reject the duplicate transaction. But the assert_eq! at step 1 fires first because the transaction hash is already in tx_loc_by_hash from the parent block on the same chain.

The block transaction verifier does not run the best-chain nullifier query for block transactions, that check is gated on mempool transactions only (zebra-consensus/src/transaction.rs:521-526). Initial contextual validation checks nullifiers in finalized state only (zebra-state/src/service/check.rs:407-415), but the parent transaction is still in non-finalized state.

There are two attack models:

Model A (two attacker blocks): The attacker mines two consecutive valid-work blocks: parent B1 containing a shielded transaction T, and child B2 repeating T. This requires controlling both blocks consecutively.

Model B (one attacker block after an honest block): The attacker broadcasts a shielded transaction T into the mempool. When any honest miner includes T in their block B1, the attacker only needs to mine the next child block B2 containing the same T. This requires controlling only one block immediately after an honest block that included the attacker's transaction. The attacker can broadcast a suitable shielded transaction every block until one is included by an honest miner, then attempt to mine the follow-up.

Both models require the child block to repeat the shielded-only V5 transaction while the parent is still in non-finalized state.

Workarounds

There is no configuration-level workaround. The assert is in the non-finalized state push path, which is exercised by all block processing past the checkpoint height.

Credit

Reported by @haxatron via email disclosure.

A malicious block producer can crash targeted Zebra nodes. There are two attack models:

In the first model, the attacker mines two consecutive valid-work blocks where the child repeats a shielded transaction from the parent. At 10% hashrate, the attacker has approximately 11.5 opportunities per day; at 5%, approximately 2.9 per day; at 1%, approximately one every 8.7 days.

In the second model, the attacker broadcasts a shielded transaction into the mempool and waits for any honest miner to include it. The attacker then only needs to mine the next block containing the same transaction. This is cheaper because the attacker does not need to mine the parent block. At 10% hashrate, the attacker has approximately 14.4 single-block opportunities per day; at 5%, approximately 7.2 per day; at 1%, approximately 1.4 per day.

The crash is a process abort (not recoverable within the process). The node must be restarted. Repeated attacks can keep a node down for extended periods. This is a liveness issue, not a consensus divergence: zcashd cleanly rejects the invalid child block while Zebra aborts.

CVE-2026-52739 has a CVSS score of 5.9 (Medium). The vector is network-reachable, no privileges required, and no user interaction. A CVSS score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether this affects your application depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable in your environment. A fixed version is available (7.0.0, 4.5.0); upgrading removes the vulnerable code path.

Kodem intelligence

zebra-state 7.0.0 and zebrad 4.5.0.

Replace the assert_eq! with an Entry-based check that returns ValidateContextError::DuplicateTransaction instead of panicking:

match self.tx_loc_by_hash.entry(transaction_hash) {
    Entry::Vacant(entry) => {
        entry.insert(transaction_location);
    }
    Entry::Occupied(_) => {
        return Err(ValidateContextError::DuplicateTransaction { transaction_hash });
    }
}

1. What is CVE-2026-52739? CVE-2026-52739 is a medium-severity security vulnerability in zebra-state (rust), affecting versions <= 6.0.0. It is fixed in 7.0.0, 4.5.0.
2. How severe is CVE-2026-52739? CVE-2026-52739 has a CVSS score of 5.9 (Medium). This score reflects the worst-case severity of the vulnerability, not your specific exposure. Whether it represents real risk in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable.
3. Which packages are affected by CVE-2026-52739?
   • zebra-state (rust) (versions <= 6.0.0)
   • zebrad (rust) (versions <= 4.4.1)
4. Is there a fix for CVE-2026-52739? Yes. CVE-2026-52739 is fixed in 7.0.0, 4.5.0. Upgrade to this version or later.
5. Is CVE-2026-52739 exploitable, and should I be worried? Whether CVE-2026-52739 is exploitable in your environment depends on whether the vulnerable code is present and reachable. A CVSS score is a worst-case rating; it does not account for your specific deployment, configuration, or usage patterns. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to show which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so you can focus on the ones that represent real risk. Get a demo
6. What actually determines whether CVE-2026-52739 is exploitable, and how bad it is? Exploitability and impact are not fixed properties of a CVE. They depend on runtime truth: whether the vulnerable code is present, reachable, and actually executes in your application. A high CVSS score on a dependency that never runs is not the same as real risk. Kodem, an Intelligent Application Security platform, uses runtime intelligence to reveal which vulnerabilities actually execute in production, so teams prioritize the ones that genuinely matter.
7. How do I fix CVE-2026-52739?
   • Upgrade zebra-state to 7.0.0 or later
   • Upgrade zebrad to 4.5.0 or later