CVE-2026-88255

mpp Tempo keys its pre-broadcast dedup reserve on the caller-supplied transaction encoding, so a re-encoded signed transaction reserves a second slot

MEDIUM
6.3
CVSS Score
Published: September 16, 2026 at 08:24 AM UTC
Updated: September 16, 2026 at 08:54 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
MEDIUM6.3
Exploit prediction
EPSS 0.5%
SSVC
No known exploit

Description

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.

Affected

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

0.2.0 ≤ v < 0.16.20.2.0f8904666061fbab695874856d8fcd02c471dfe1b
Vendor states this is fixed in e12bd4a1cea2e97c2a01fc059c48e5594a7b4a43 (fixed)
Affected range stops below 0.16.2, 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

SSVCNo known exploitNot automatablePartial impact

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

CVSS

6.3MEDIUMEEF
Vector?

Quick Info

StatusAWAITING ANALYSIS
CWE
CWE-1289

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