CVE-2026-59252

Missing gas_limit validation in mpp Tempo fee-payer enables wallet drain

HIGH
8.2
CVSS Score
Published: July 17, 2026 at 10:11 AM UTC
Updated: October 24, 2026 at 08:10 PM UTC
1 product affected across 1 vendorMachine Payments Protocol

Using mpp by ZenHive?

Get instant alerts when new vulnerabilities affect mpp - before attackers find them.

Real-time alertsTrack your software stackFree plan available
Severity
HIGH8.2
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.5%
SSVC
PoC

Description

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.

Affected

Our own answer: ranges merged, affected separated from platform-only, with confidence and review flags.

All versions0.2.0d29d54e507918db00a5b65d90136b73166c017d7
Vendor states this is fixed in d84e3e528db39654540c2035ea0fbdf7b950d3d1 (fixed)
Affected range stops below 0.6.0, so it looks safe — our inference, not a vendor statement

Remediation

No guide yet

No remediation guidance has been written for this CVE yet. What the record does show:

SSVC — Action Prioritization

SSVCPoCNot automatablePartial impact

SSVC signals action urgency (what to patch first), separate from CVSS which measures severity.

CVSS

8.2HIGHEEF
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusDEFERRED
CWE
CWE-1284

Get alerted

Stop reading CVE feeds looking for your own stack

Track the products you run and VulnTracker tells you when a new CVE affects them — with what is known about fixing it, and nothing about the rest.

Free plan, no card