ghsa-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3
Vulnerability from github
Published
2023-07-25 17:46
Modified
2024-11-19 16:44
Summary
ecrecover can return undefined data if signature does not verify
Details

Impact

the ecrecover precompile does not fill the output buffer if the signature does not verify, see https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/b058cf454b3bdc7e770e2b3cec83a0bcb48f55ee/core/vm/contracts.go#L188. however, the ecrecover builtin will still return whatever is at memory location 0.

this means that the if the compiler has been convinced to write to the 0 memory location with specially crafted data (generally, this can happen with a hashmap access or immutable read) just before the ecrecover, a signature check might pass on an invalid signature.

A contract search was performed. Most uses of ecrecover are used for erc2612-style permit implementations, which typically look like:

```vyper assert _owner != empty(address) assert block.timestamp <= _deadline

nonce: uint256 = self.nonces[_owner]
digest: bytes32 = keccak256(
    concat(   
        b"\x19\x01",
        self.DOMAIN_SEPARATOR,
        keccak256(_abi_encode(PERMIT_TYPEHASH, _owner, _spender, _value, nonce, _deadline))
    )         
)             
assert ecrecover(digest, convert(_v, uint256), convert(_r, uint256), convert(_s, uint256)) == _owner

```

in this case, the immutable PERMIT_TYPEHASH is loaded into ecrecover's output buffer right before ecrecover(), and so the output of ecrecover() here when the signature is invalid will be the value of PERMIT_TYPEHASH. in this case, since PERMIT_TYPEHASH is not a valid address, it will never compare == to _owner, and so the behaviour is exactly the same as if ecrecover() returned 0 in this case.

in general, a contract could have unexpected behavior (i.e. mistakenly pass this style of signature check) if an immutable representing a real address (ex. OWNER) was read right before the ecrecover operation.

Patches

v0.3.10 (with 019a37ab98ff53f04fecfadf602b6cd5ac748f7f and #3586)

Workarounds

Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?

References

Are there any links users can visit to find out more?

Show details on source website


{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "PyPI",
        "name": "vyper"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "0.3.10"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2023-37902"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-252"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2023-07-25T17:46:19Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2023-07-25T21:15:10Z",
    "severity": "MODERATE"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\nthe ecrecover precompile does not fill the output buffer if the signature does not verify, see https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/b058cf454b3bdc7e770e2b3cec83a0bcb48f55ee/core/vm/contracts.go#L188. however, the ecrecover builtin will still return whatever is at memory location 0.\n\nthis means that the if the compiler has been convinced to write to the 0 memory location with specially crafted data (generally, this can happen with a hashmap access or immutable read) just before the ecrecover, a signature check might pass on an invalid signature.\n\nA contract search was performed. Most uses of `ecrecover` are used for erc2612-style permit implementations, which typically look like:\n\n```vyper\n    assert _owner != empty(address)\n    assert block.timestamp \u003c= _deadline\n                  \n    nonce: uint256 = self.nonces[_owner]\n    digest: bytes32 = keccak256(\n        concat(   \n            b\"\\x19\\x01\",\n            self.DOMAIN_SEPARATOR,\n            keccak256(_abi_encode(PERMIT_TYPEHASH, _owner, _spender, _value, nonce, _deadline))\n        )         \n    )             \n    assert ecrecover(digest, convert(_v, uint256), convert(_r, uint256), convert(_s, uint256)) == _owner\n```\n\nin this case, the immutable `PERMIT_TYPEHASH` is loaded into `ecrecover`\u0027s output buffer right before `ecrecover()`, and so the output of `ecrecover()` here when the signature is invalid will be the value of `PERMIT_TYPEHASH`. in this case, since `PERMIT_TYPEHASH` is not a valid address, it will never compare `==` to `_owner`, and so the behaviour is exactly the same as if `ecrecover()` returned 0 in this case.\n\nin general, a contract could have unexpected behavior (i.e. mistakenly pass this style of signature check) if an immutable representing a real address (ex. `OWNER`) was read right before the `ecrecover` operation.\n\n### Patches\nv0.3.10 (with 019a37ab98ff53f04fecfadf602b6cd5ac748f7f and #3586)\n\n### Workarounds\n_Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?_\n\n### References\n_Are there any links users can visit to find out more?_\n",
  "id": "GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3",
  "modified": "2024-11-19T16:44:35Z",
  "published": "2023-07-25T17:46:19Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-37902"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/019a37ab98ff53f04fecfadf602b6cd5ac748f7f"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vyper/PYSEC-2023-133.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:L/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    },
    {
      "score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V4"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "ecrecover can return undefined data if signature does not verify"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.


Loading…

Loading…

Loading…

Sightings

Author Source Type Date

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
  • Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.