GSD-2022-29219

Vulnerability from gsd - Updated: 2023-12-13 01:19
Details
Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.
Aliases
Aliases
CVE-2022-29219
To clipboard 

{
  "GSD": {
    "alias": "CVE-2022-29219",
    "description": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.",
    "id": "GSD-2022-29219"
  },
  "gsd": {
    "metadata": {
      "exploitCode": "unknown",
      "remediation": "unknown",
      "reportConfidence": "confirmed",
      "type": "vulnerability"
    },
    "osvSchema": {
      "aliases": [
        "CVE-2022-29219"
      ],
      "details": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.",
      "id": "GSD-2022-29219",
      "modified": "2023-12-13T01:19:42.391628Z",
      "schema_version": "1.4.0"
    }
  },
  "namespaces": {
    "cve.org": {
      "CVE_data_meta": {
        "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
        "ID": "CVE-2022-29219",
        "STATE": "PUBLIC",
        "TITLE": "Integer Overflow in Lodestar"
      },
      "affects": {
        "vendor": {
          "vendor_data": [
            {
              "product": {
                "product_data": [
                  {
                    "product_name": "lodestar",
                    "version": {
                      "version_data": [
                        {
                          "version_value": "\u003c 0.36.0"
                        }
                      ]
                    }
                  }
                ]
              },
              "vendor_name": "ChainSafe"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "data_format": "MITRE",
      "data_type": "CVE",
      "data_version": "4.0",
      "description": {
        "description_data": [
          {
            "lang": "eng",
            "value": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus."
          }
        ]
      },
      "impact": {
        "cvss": {
          "attackComplexity": "LOW",
          "attackVector": "NETWORK",
          "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
          "baseScore": 7.5,
          "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
          "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
          "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
          "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
          "scope": "UNCHANGED",
          "userInteraction": "NONE",
          "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
          "version": "3.1"
        }
      },
      "problemtype": {
        "problemtype_data": [
          {
            "description": [
              {
                "lang": "eng",
                "value": "CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound"
              }
            ]
          }
        ]
      },
      "references": {
        "reference_data": [
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
            "refsource": "CONFIRM",
            "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
          },
          {
            "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0",
            "refsource": "MISC",
            "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
          }
        ]
      },
      "source": {
        "advisory": "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      }
    },
    "gitlab.com": {
      "advisories": [
        {
          "affected_range": "\u003c0.36.0",
          "affected_versions": "All versions before 0.36.0",
          "cvss_v2": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N",
          "cvss_v3": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
          "cwe_ids": [
            "CWE-1035",
            "CWE-190",
            "CWE-937"
          ],
          "date": "2022-06-07",
          "description": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.",
          "fixed_versions": [
            "0.36.0"
          ],
          "identifier": "CVE-2022-29219",
          "identifiers": [
            "CVE-2022-29219",
            "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
          ],
          "not_impacted": "All versions starting from 0.36.0",
          "package_slug": "npm/@chainsafe/lodestar-cli",
          "pubdate": "2022-05-24",
          "solution": "Upgrade to version 0.36.0 or above.",
          "title": "Integer Overflow or Wraparound",
          "urls": [
            "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29219",
            "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
            "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0",
            "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
          ],
          "uuid": "366f23a5-ce15-4f88-89d9-5023e02089ce"
        },
        {
          "affected_range": "\u003c0.36.0",
          "affected_versions": "All versions before 0.36.0",
          "cwe_ids": [
            "CWE-1035",
            "CWE-190",
            "CWE-937"
          ],
          "date": "2022-05-24",
          "description": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.",
          "fixed_versions": [
            "0.36.0"
          ],
          "identifier": "CVE-2022-29219",
          "identifiers": [
            "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
            "CVE-2022-29219"
          ],
          "not_impacted": "All versions starting from 0.36.0",
          "package_slug": "npm/@chainsafe/lodestar",
          "pubdate": "2022-05-24",
          "solution": "Upgrade to version 0.36.0 or above.",
          "title": "Integer Overflow or Wraparound",
          "urls": [
            "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
            "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29219",
            "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977",
            "https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
          ],
          "uuid": "b6c101bb-3c6d-41cb-a02a-9ac036b35897"
        }
      ]
    },
    "nvd.nist.gov": {
      "configurations": {
        "CVE_data_version": "4.0",
        "nodes": [
          {
            "children": [],
            "cpe_match": [
              {
                "cpe23Uri": "cpe:2.3:a:chainsafe:lodestar:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
                "cpe_name": [],
                "versionEndExcluding": "0.36.0",
                "vulnerable": true
              }
            ],
            "operator": "OR"
          }
        ]
      },
      "cve": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
          "ID": "CVE-2022-29219"
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "en",
              "value": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "en",
                  "value": "CWE-190"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "tags": [
                "Patch",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Release Notes",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "tags": [
                "Patch",
                "Third Party Advisory"
              ],
              "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
            }
          ]
        }
      },
      "impact": {
        "baseMetricV2": {
          "acInsufInfo": false,
          "cvssV2": {
            "accessComplexity": "LOW",
            "accessVector": "NETWORK",
            "authentication": "NONE",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 5.0,
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "PARTIAL",
            "vectorString": "AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N",
            "version": "2.0"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 10.0,
          "impactScore": 2.9,
          "obtainAllPrivilege": false,
          "obtainOtherPrivilege": false,
          "obtainUserPrivilege": false,
          "severity": "MEDIUM",
          "userInteractionRequired": false
        },
        "baseMetricV3": {
          "cvssV3": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 7.5,
            "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          },
          "exploitabilityScore": 3.9,
          "impactScore": 3.6
        }
      },
      "lastModifiedDate": "2022-06-07T16:25Z",
      "publishedDate": "2022-05-24T15:15Z"
    }
  }
}


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.