Skip to content

Light blockchain rebranch issue

Moderate
jsdanielh published GHSA-m3pg-qc2q-mg8c May 15, 2026

Package

cargo light-blockchain (Rust)

Affected versions

<=v1.3.0

Patched versions

v1.4.0

Description

Impact

When LightBlockchain::rebranch() adopts a fork chain whose tip is a macro block (checkpoint or election), it only updates self.head but fails to update self.macro_head, self.election_head, self.current_validators, or store the election header in the chain_store. This is in direct contrast with the full Blockchain::rebranch() at blockchain/src/blockchain/push.rs:504-518, which correctly updates all macro/election state when the new head is a macro block. After a rebranch to a macro block, the stale macro_head causes subsequent macro blocks pushed via push() to be verified against the wrong predecessor via verify_macro_successor(&this.macro_head). If the rebranch target was an election block, the stale current_validators causes every subsequent block to fail verify_validators(), completely stalling the light client's chain progression

Patches

The patch for this vulnerability is formally released as part of v1.4.0.

Workarounds

No Workarounds

References

See PR.

Severity

Moderate

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 v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
Low
Availability
Low

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L

CVE ID

CVE-2026-46540

Weaknesses

Improper Enforcement of Behavioral Workflow

The product supports a session in which more than one behavior must be performed by an actor, but it does not properly ensure that the actor performs the behaviors in the required sequence. Learn more on MITRE.

Credits