Skip to content

libp2p-gossipsub: Remote crash via unchecked Instant overflow in heartbeat backoff expiry handling

High severity GitHub Reviewed Published Mar 27, 2026 in libp2p/rust-libp2p • Updated Mar 31, 2026

Package

cargo libp2p-gossipsub (Rust)

Affected versions

< 0.49.4

Patched versions

0.49.4

Description

Description

Summary

The Rust libp2p Gossipsub implementation contains a remotely reachable panic in backoff expiry handling.
After a peer sends a crafted PRUNE control message with an attacker-controlled, near-maximum backoff value, the value is accepted and stored as an Instant near the representable upper bound. On a later heartbeat, the implementation performs unchecked Instant + Duration arithmetic (backoff_time + slack), which can overflow and panic with:
overflow when adding duration to instant
This issue is reachable from any Gossipsub peer over normal TCP + Noise + mplex/yamux connectivity and requires no further authentication beyond becoming a protocol peer.

Attack Scenario

An attacker that can establish a libp2p Gossipsub session with a target node can crash the target by sending crafted PRUNE control data:

  1. Establish a standard libp2p session (TCP + Noise) and negotiate a stream multiplexer (mplex/yamux).
  2. Open a Gossipsub stream and send an RPC containing ControlPrune with a very large backoff (chosen near boundary conditions, e.g. ~ i64::MAX - victim_uptime_seconds; example observed: 9223372036854674580 for ~28h uptime).
  3. The value is parsed from protobuf and passed through Behaviour::handle_prune() into mesh/backoff update logic.
  4. Initial storage path uses checked addition (Instant::now().checked_add(...)), so the malicious near-max value is retained.
  5. On the next heartbeat (typically within ~43–74s), expiry logic computes backoff_time + slack using unchecked addition, which overflows and panics.

Impact

Remote unauthenticated denial of service (critical).
Any application exposing an affected libp2p-gossipsub listener can be crashed by a network-reachable peer that sends crafted PRUNE backoff values. The crash is triggered during heartbeat processing (not immediately at PRUNE parse time), and can be repeated by reconnecting and replaying the message.

Differences from CVE-2026-33040

This advisory is related to CVE-2026-33040 but it is not the same defect. CVE-2026-33040 addressed overflow during backoff insertion by adding checked arithmetic when converting PRUNE backoff into an Instant. The issue in this advisory occurs at a different location and at a different time: a near-maximum backoff can still be stored successfully, and the crash happens later in the heartbeat path when slack is added to that stored Instant using unchecked arithmetic. This report covers a distinct secondary overflow path in heartbeat expiry handling that remained reachable after the original insertion-side hardening.

This vulnerability was originally reported by the Security team of the Ethereum Foundation.

References

@jxs jxs published to libp2p/rust-libp2p Mar 27, 2026
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Mar 30, 2026
Reviewed Mar 30, 2026
Published by the National Vulnerability Database Mar 31, 2026
Last updated Mar 31, 2026

Severity

High

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector Network
Attack Complexity Low
Attack Requirements Present
Privileges Required None
User interaction None
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability High
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality None
Integrity None
Availability None

CVSS v4 base metrics

Exploitability Metrics
Attack Vector: This metric reflects the context by which vulnerability exploitation is possible. This metric value (and consequently the resulting severity) will be larger the more remote (logically, and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerable system. The assumption is that the number of potential attackers for a vulnerability that could be exploited from across a network is larger than the number of potential attackers that could exploit a vulnerability requiring physical access to a device, and therefore warrants a greater severity.
Attack Complexity: This metric captures measurable actions that must be taken by the attacker to actively evade or circumvent existing built-in security-enhancing conditions in order to obtain a working exploit. These are conditions whose primary purpose is to increase security and/or increase exploit engineering complexity. A vulnerability exploitable without a target-specific variable has a lower complexity than a vulnerability that would require non-trivial customization. This metric is meant to capture security mechanisms utilized by the vulnerable system.
Attack Requirements: This metric captures the prerequisite deployment and execution conditions or variables of the vulnerable system that enable the attack. These differ from security-enhancing techniques/technologies (ref Attack Complexity) as the primary purpose of these conditions is not to explicitly mitigate attacks, but rather, emerge naturally as a consequence of the deployment and execution of the vulnerable system.
Privileges Required: This metric describes the level of privileges an attacker must possess prior to successfully exploiting the vulnerability. The method by which the attacker obtains privileged credentials prior to the attack (e.g., free trial accounts), is outside the scope of this metric. Generally, self-service provisioned accounts do not constitute a privilege requirement if the attacker can grant themselves privileges as part of the attack.
User interaction: This metric captures the requirement for a human user, other than the attacker, to participate in the successful compromise of the vulnerable system. This metric determines whether the vulnerability can be exploited solely at the will of the attacker, or whether a separate user (or user-initiated process) must participate in some manner.
Vulnerable System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the VULNERABLE SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the VULNERABLE SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
Subsequent System Impact Metrics
Confidentiality: This metric measures the impact to the confidentiality of the information managed by the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM due to a successfully exploited vulnerability. Confidentiality refers to limiting information access and disclosure to only authorized users, as well as preventing access by, or disclosure to, unauthorized ones.
Integrity: This metric measures the impact to integrity of a successfully exploited vulnerability. Integrity refers to the trustworthiness and veracity of information. Integrity of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM is impacted when an attacker makes unauthorized modification of system data. Integrity is also impacted when a system user can repudiate critical actions taken in the context of the system (e.g. due to insufficient logging).
Availability: This metric measures the impact to the availability of the SUBSEQUENT SYSTEM resulting from a successfully exploited vulnerability. While the Confidentiality and Integrity impact metrics apply to the loss of confidentiality or integrity of data (e.g., information, files) used by the system, this metric refers to the loss of availability of the impacted system itself, such as a networked service (e.g., web, database, email). Since availability refers to the accessibility of information resources, attacks that consume network bandwidth, processor cycles, or disk space all impact the availability of a system.
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:P/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS score

Exploit Prediction Scoring System (EPSS)

This score estimates the probability of this vulnerability being exploited within the next 30 days. Data provided by FIRST.
(15th percentile)

Weaknesses

Integer Overflow or Wraparound

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number. Learn more on MITRE.

Reachable Assertion

The product contains an assert() or similar statement that can be triggered by an attacker, which leads to an application exit or other behavior that is more severe than necessary. Learn more on MITRE.

CVE ID

CVE-2026-34219

GHSA ID

GHSA-xqmp-fxgv-xvq5

Source code

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.