Raw vector
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:X/CR:X/IR:X/AR:X/MAV:X/MAC:X/MAT:X/MPR:X/MUI:X/MVC:X/MVI:X/MVA:X/MSC:X/MSI:X/MSA:X/S:X/AU:X/R:X/V:X/RE:X/U:XSummary
CVE-2026-73136 is a high-severity Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay (CWE-294) vulnerability in Erlef (inferred from references). Its CVSS base score is 8.2 (High).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Network Sniffing (T1040); ranked at the 43th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.
The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SC-23 (Session Authenticity) and SC-8 (Transmission Confidentiality and Integrity) — see the control section below for these in your framework.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2026-62592
Vulnerability Data
Authentication Bypass by Capture-replay in ZenHive mpp allows an unauthenticated third party to obtain paid resources by replaying a transfer settled by an unrelated payer. MPP.Methods.Tempo normally binds a settled TIP-20 TransferWithMemo to the specific challenge under verification through an…
more
attribution nonce carried in the memo. When a static "memo" is configured in method_config, check_matched_memo_binding/3 returns the match unconditionally and that binding is skipped, leaving only token, recipient, amount and the static memo value to match on. The static memo is echoed in every unauthenticated 402 response and Tempo transfers are public, so an attacker can take any matching transfer paid by a legitimate customer, request a fresh challenge for the same route, and present that transaction hash as a type="hash" credential. The hash path performs no sender or signature check tying the presenter to the wallet that broadcast the transfer. This issue affects mpp: from 0.6.1 before 0.6.4.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V10.4.16V10.5.1
Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI
Session authenticity mechanisms directly stop replay of captured authentication traffic by enforcing freshness or cryptographic binding.
Transmission integrity (with anti-replay) stops captured messages from being accepted as valid later.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Protecting and verifying identity assertions prevents replay of captured authentication material.
Encryption and integrity protections for data-in-transit directly block capture-replay of credentials or tokens.
Network monitoring may detect anomalous replays after the fact but does not prevent the design flaw.
Strong authentication methods can reduce replay risk but do not inherently address captured messages.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Cryptographic protections (e.g., nonces, timestamps, message authentication codes) make captured authentication messages unusable for replay.
Secure authentication mechanisms directly prevent replay attacks by requiring fresh, non-replayable credentials or tokens.
Network security controls such as encryption and integrity protection reduce the feasibility of capturing and replaying authentication traffic.
Application security requirements can mandate replay-resistant authentication designs, but the control itself does not prescribe the technical measures.