CVE-2026-104434 — Zebra before 8.0.0 Denial of Service via z_listunifiedreceivers RPC

ZcashFoundation Zebra zebra-rpc before 8.0.0 and zebrad before 4.5.0 contain a reachable assertion in the z_listunifiedreceivers RPC handler, which calls expect() on Sapling receiver parsing that fails for Unified Addresses carrying invalid Jubjub points. Authenticated RPC clients can submit such an address to abort the zebrad process, repeatably keeping the node offline.

Published Oct 2, 2026Updated Oct 2, 2026Sources: cvelistV5, VulnCheck

Triage

Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.

Exploitation

Unreported

no source claims exploitation

EPSS

chance of exploitation in 30 days

Affects

zcashfoundation

zebra

CVSS base

6.5

MEDIUM

CISA SSVC assessment

Three decision points CISA publishes for the CVEs it assesses · SSVC 2.0.3. A stakeholder decision, not a severity score.

CISA

Exploitation

None

none · proof-of-concept · active

Automatable

can an attacker script all four kill-chain steps

Technical impact

Partial

partial · total control of the vulnerable component

Affected scope

The catalog records vendors and products as separate lists, not pairs, so which product belongs to which vendor is not something this page can say.

Vendors (1)

zcashfoundation

Products (1)

zebra

Every base score collected

Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.

Score	Version	Severity	Expl.	Impact	Source
6.5	CVSS 3.1	MEDIUM	—	—	cvelistV5

Weakness & attack patterns

CWE-617

References

2 on the record

github.com/ZcashFoundation/zebra/security/advisories/GHSA-c8w6-x74f-vmg3
vendor-advisory
www.vulncheck.com/advisories/zebra-before-8.0.0-denial-of-service-via-z-listunifiedreceivers-rpc
third-party-advisory

Elsewhere on this site

zcashfoundationevery CVE for this vendor
CWE-617other pages naming this weakness

Not in any source we poll

Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.

No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.