vyper: Out-of-bounds Write
CVE-2023-42443 is a high-severity out-of-bounds write vulnerability in vyper from Vyperlang, with a CVSS 3.1 base score of 8.1 out of 10. It can be exploited remotely over the network by an unauthenticated attacker, without any action from a user. Affected vyper versions: <= 0.3.9; 0.3.9 and earlier. The record does not name a fixed version, so check the vendor advisory. There is no confirmed exploitation so far. EPSS estimates a 0.83% chance of exploitation within 30 days, higher than 58% of scored CVEs.
High severity with no evidence of exploitation so far.
What to do
- Check which version of vyper you run against the affected versions below, and install the vendor's latest release.
- Read the advisory on github.com for workarounds and exact fixed builds.
- Until you can update, restrict network access to the affected service so it is not reachable from untrusted networks.
Affected products and versions
Version data comes from the organisation that assigned the CVE. Confirm against the vendor advisory before deciding you are unaffected.
How the severity score breaks down
- Attack vector
- NetworkCan be exploited remotely over a network, including the internet.
- Attack complexity
- HighSuccess depends on conditions outside the attacker's control.
- Privileges required
- NoneNo account or login is needed.
- User interaction
- NoneNo action by a victim is required.
- Scope
- UnchangedImpact stays within the vulnerable component.
- Confidentiality
- HighAll data handled by the component can be read.
- Integrity
- HighData or code can be modified at will.
- Availability
- HighThe component can be taken down completely.
Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H. Scored by NVD.
| Scoring system | Score | Severity | Scored by |
|---|---|---|---|
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.1 | High | CNA (github.com) |
| CVSS 3.1 | 8.1 | High | NVD |
Official description
Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum Virtual Machine (EVM). In version 0.3.9 and prior, under certain conditions, the memory used by the builtins `raw_call`, `create_from_blueprint` and `create_copy_of` can be corrupted. For `raw_call`, the argument buffer of the call can be corrupted, leading to incorrect `calldata` in the sub-context. For `create_from_blueprint` and `create_copy_of`, the buffer for the to-be-deployed bytecode can be corrupted, leading to deploying incorrect bytecode. Each builtin has conditions that must be fulfilled for the corruption to happen. For `raw_call`, the `data` argument of the builtin must be `msg.data` and the `value` or `gas` passed to the builtin must be some complex expression that results in writing to the memory. For `create_copy_of`, the `value` or `salt` passed to the builtin must be some complex expression that results in writing to the memory. For `create_from_blueprint`, either no constructor parameters should be passed to the builtin or `raw_args` should be set to True, and the `value` or `salt` passed to the builtin must be some complex expression that results in writing to the memory. As of time of publication, no patched version exists. The issue is still being investigated, and there might be other cases where the corruption might happen. When the builtin is being called from an `internal` function `F`, the issue is not present provided that the function calling `F` wrote to memory before calling `F`. As a workaround, the complex expressions that are being passed as kwargs to the builtin should be cached in memory prior to the call to the builtin.
Source: the CVE record as published by its numbering authority, via NVD and CVE.org.
The underlying weakness: Out-of-bounds Write
The product writes data past the end, or before the beginning, of the intended buffer.
How developers prevent this class of flaw
- Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, many languages that perform their own memory management, such as Java and Perl, are not subject to buffer overflows. Other languages, such as Ada and C#, typically provide overflow protection, but the protection can be disabled by the programmer. Be wary that a language's interface to native code may still be subject to overflows, even if the language itself is theoretically safe.
- Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. Examples include the Safe C String Library (SafeStr) by Messier and Viega, and the Strsafe.h library from Microsoft. These libraries provide safer versions of overflow-prone string-handling functions.
- Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index checking. D3-SFCV (Stack Frame Canary Validation) from D3FEND discusses canary-based detection in detail.
Timeline
- CVE record published.
- CISA published its SSVC assessment (exploitation: none, automatable: no, technical impact: total).
- Record last changed materially (score, affected products, status or references).
References
Advisories
Other vulnerabilities in vyper
- 8.4 High severity
- 7.5 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.5 High severity
Recent Out-of-bounds Write vulnerabilities
- 7.5 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 9.8 Critical severity
- 7.8 High severity
- 8.8 High severity
- 7.8 High severity
Spotted an error? Tell us.