GHSA-6R8Q-PFPV-7CGJ

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-05-12 20:21 – Updated: 2024-11-19 16:32
VLAI?
Summary
Vyper vulnerable to integer overflow in loop
Details

Impact

Due to missing overflow check for loop variables, by assigning the iterator of a loop to a variable, it is possible to overflow the type of the latter.

In the following example, calling test returns 354, meaning that the variable a did store 354 a value out of bound for the type uint8.

@external
def test() -> uint16:
    x:uint8 = 255
    a:uint8 = 0
    for i in range(x, x+100):
        a = i
    return convert(a,uint16)

The issue seems to happen only in loops of type for i in range(a, a + N) as in loops of type for i in range(start, stop) and for i in range(stop), the compiler is able to raise a TypeMismatch when trying to overflow the variable.

thanks to @trocher for reporting

Patches

patched in 3de1415ee77a9244eb04bdb695e249d3ec9ed868

Workarounds

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

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "vyper"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.3.8"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-32058"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-190"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2023-05-12T20:21:35Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-05-11T21:15:10Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\nDue to missing overflow check for loop variables, by assigning the iterator of a loop to a variable, it is possible to overflow the type of the latter.\n\nIn the following example, calling `test` returns `354`, meaning that the variable `a` did store `354` a value out of bound for the type `uint8`.\n\n```Vyper\n@external\ndef test() -\u003e uint16:\n    x:uint8 = 255\n    a:uint8 = 0\n    for i in range(x, x+100):\n        a = i\n    return convert(a,uint16)\n```\n\nThe issue seems to happen only in loops of type `for i in range(a, a + N)` as in loops of type `for i in range(start, stop)` and `for i in range(stop)`, the compiler is able to raise a `TypeMismatch` when trying to overflow the variable.\n\nthanks to @trocher for reporting\n\n### Patches\n\npatched in 3de1415ee77a9244eb04bdb695e249d3ec9ed868\n\n### Workarounds\n\n ",
  "id": "GHSA-6r8q-pfpv-7cgj",
  "modified": "2024-11-19T16:32:38Z",
  "published": "2023-05-12T20:21:35Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-6r8q-pfpv-7cgj"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-32058"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/3de1415ee77a9244eb04bdb695e249d3ec9ed868"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vyper/PYSEC-2023-78.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:N/A:H",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:N/VA:H/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "Vyper vulnerable to integer overflow in loop"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Sightings

Author Source Type Date

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.