CVE-2026-52733VulnerabilityPublished 2 Jul 2026

Zebra state: zebrad has persistent on-disk corruption of Sapling/Orchard subtree roots after chain fork via pop_tip

Affects zebra-stateSource GCVE Database

Compare

Authoritative record:CVE-2026-52733· Medium 6.5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 6.5 Medium : upgrade to 7.0.0 when convenient.

Data as of 29 Oct 2026, 19:04 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

6.5Medium

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 37% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 7.0.0, 4.5.0

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:L

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: High
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: Low

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: High: A successful attack depends on conditions beyond the attacker's control. That is, a successful attack cannot be accomplished at will, but requires the attacker to invest in some measurable amount of effort in preparation or execution against the vulnerable component before a successful attack can be expected. For example, a successful attack may require an attacker to: gather knowledge about the environment in which the vulnerable target/component exists; prepare the target environment to improve exploit reliability; or inject themselves into the logical network path between the target and the resource requested by the victim in order to read and/or modify network communications (e.g., a man in the middle attack).
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 Aug 2026
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponized: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 29 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponized: A Metasploit exploit module or Exploit-DB entry exists (Metasploit scanner modules do not count), or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

Upgrade zebra-state to 7.0.0; zebrad to 4.5.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
crates.iozebra-state	Affected <7.0.0	Fixed in 7.0.0
crates.iozebrad	Affected <4.5.0	Fixed in 4.5.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

Description

### Am I affected You are affected if: 1. You run `zebrad` up to and including `v4.4.1`. 2. Your node participates in a network where chain forks occur (mainnet, testnet, or any network with multiple miners). All default configurations are affected. The corruption persists across restarts because it is written to RocksDB. ### Summary When `pop_tip` removes the tip block during a chain fork, stale Sapling and Orchard note commitment subtree root data is retained in the in-memory non-finalized state. When the chain subsequently finalizes, this stale data is written to the persistent RocksDB state. The corrupted subtree root history affects `z_getsubtreesbyindex` (used by lightwalletd for wallet synchronization) and could affect future chain verification that depends on correct subtree roots. ### Details The non-finalized state provides two methods for removing blocks: `pop_root` (removes the oldest block during finalization) and `pop_tip` (removes the newest block during a fork revert). `pop_root` correctly cleans up note commitment subtree contributions. `pop_tip` does not: it removes the block but retains the block's subtree root contributions in the in-memory state. When a chain fork occurs and `pop_tip` reverts the old tip, the winning fork's chain is extended. When that chain is later finalized, the stale subtree data from the reverted blocks is included in the RocksDB write batch and persisted to disk. The `pop_root`/`pop_tip` asymmetry is specific to subtree root handling. Other state managed by `pop_tip` (nullifiers, UTXOs, anchors, block hashes) uses different cleanup patterns that are not affected. ### Patches zebra-state 7.0.0 and zebrad 4.5.0. The fix adds subtree root cleanup to `pop_tip` matching the pattern already used by `pop_root`. ### Workarounds There is no configuration-level workaround. Chain forks are natural events on any Proof-of-Work network. Operators can mitigate the downstream impact by periodically verifying subtree root consistency using `z_getsubtreesbyindex` against a known-good reference. ### Impact Persistent corruption of Sapling and Orchard subtree root history in the RocksDB state database. The corruption survives node restarts. Downstream consumers that rely on `z_getsubtreesbyindex` for wallet synchronization (primarily `lightwalletd` and light wallets) receive incorrect subtree roots. This does not directly affect consensus validation of new blocks but can cause wallet synchronization failures or incorrect wallet state. Recovery requires rebuilding the state database from scratch. ### Credit Reported by `@dingledropper` via a private GitHub Security Advisory submission.

CWE-459Incomplete Cleanup (opens in a new tab)
Base weakness
The product does not properly "clean up" and remove temporary or supporting resources after they have been used.
Architecture and Design · Implementation
Temporary files and other supporting resources should be deleted/released immediately after they are no longer needed.
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).
CWE-672Operation on a Resource after Expiration or Release (opens in a new tab)
Class weakness
The product uses, accesses, or otherwise operates on a resource after that resource has been expired, released, or revoked.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

WeaknessesCWE-459, CWE-672

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats