GCVE Workshop - 22 September 2026 (14:00-18:00), Luxembourg Before The Vulnopticon Conference - Registration

GHSA-4V9Q-CGPW-CF38

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-06-06 21:23 – Updated: 2024-11-19 16:17
VLAI
Summary
Multiple evaluation of contract address in call in vyper
Details

Impact

when a calling an external contract with no return value, the contract address could be evaluated twice. this is usually only an efficiency problem, but if evaluation of the contract address has side effects, it could result in double evaluation of the side effects.

in the following example, Foo(msg.sender).bar() is the contract address for the following call (to .foo()), and could get evaluated twice

interface Foo:
    def foo(): nonpayable
    def bar() -> address: nonpayable

@external
def do_stuff():
    Foo(Foo(msg.sender).bar()).foo()

Patches

6b4d8ff185de071252feaa1c319712b2d6577f8d

Workarounds

assign contract addresses to variables. the above example would change to

@external
def do_stuff():
    t: Foo = Foo(msg.sender).bar()
    t.foo()

References

For more information

Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
8.7 (High)
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N
Show details on source website
To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "vyper"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.3.4"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-29255"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-670"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-06-06T21:23:58Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-06-09T09:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\nwhen a calling an external contract with no return value, the contract address could be evaluated twice. this is usually only an efficiency problem, but if evaluation of the contract address has side effects, it could result in double evaluation of the side effects.\n\nin the following example, `Foo(msg.sender).bar()` is the contract address for the following call (to `.foo()`), and could get evaluated twice\n\n```vyper\ninterface Foo:\n    def foo(): nonpayable\n    def bar() -\u003e address: nonpayable\n\n@external\ndef do_stuff():\n    Foo(Foo(msg.sender).bar()).foo()\n```\n\n### Patches\n6b4d8ff185de071252feaa1c319712b2d6577f8d\n\n### Workarounds\nassign contract addresses to variables. the above example would change to\n```vyper\n@external\ndef do_stuff():\n    t: Foo = Foo(msg.sender).bar()\n    t.foo()\n```\n\n### References\n\n### For more information\n",
  "id": "GHSA-4v9q-cgpw-cf38",
  "modified": "2024-11-19T16:17:52Z",
  "published": "2022-06-06T21:23:58Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-4v9q-cgpw-cf38"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29255"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/6b4d8ff185de071252feaa1c319712b2d6577f8d"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vyper/PYSEC-2022-43053.yaml"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Multiple evaluation of contract address in call in vyper"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.





Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.


Detection rules are retrieved from Rulezet.


Related by attack behaviour

Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.