Consensus split via incorrect sighash type handling
Published May 8, 2026 · Updated May 8, 2026
Consensus failure in Zcash Foundation Zebra before 4.3.1 allows remote attackers to split network consensus via invalid sighash types. The Rust caller introduced by an FFI refactor omits the V5 known-hash-type check and canonicalizes V4 hash types instead of preserving the raw byte. Submitting a V4 or V5 transaction with an invalid hash type makes affected Zebra nodes disagree with zcashd, partitioning the network and disrupting service.
Summary
What happened
Consensus failure in Zcash Foundation Zebra before 4.3.1 allows remote attackers to split network consensus via invalid sighash types. The Rust caller introduced by an FFI refactor omits the V5 known-hash-type check and canonicalizes V4 hash types instead of preserving the raw byte. Submitting a V4 or V5 transaction with an invalid hash type makes affected Zebra nodes disagree with zcashd, partitioning the network and disrupting service.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2026-41583
- Published
- May 8, 2026
- Updated
- May 8, 2026
- Vendor
- Zcash Foundation
- Product
- Zebra
- Classifications
- CWE-573, T1499.004
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- May 8, 2026CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- May 8, 2026Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion=zebrad < 4.3.1
- Affected versionversion=zebra-script < 5.0.2
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
No public exploit references are available in this record.
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo