Vulnerability-Lookup

GHSA-36W2-WP3M-GG7J

Vulnerability from github – Published: 2022-05-14 03:10 – Updated: 2022-05-14 03:10

Details

The transferFrom function of a smart contract implementation for FuturXE (FXE), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to accomplish an unauthorized transfer of digital assets because of a logic error. The developer messed up with the boolean judgment - if the input value is smaller than or equal to allowed value, the transfer session would stop execution by returning false. This makes no sense, because the transferFrom() function should require the transferring value to not exceed the allowed value in the first place. Suppose this function asks for the allowed value to be smaller than the input. Then, the attacker could easily ignore the allowance: after this condition, the allowed[from][msg.sender] -= value; would cause an underflow because the allowed part is smaller than the value. The attacker could transfer any amount of FuturXe tokens of any accounts to an appointed account (the _to address) because the allowed value is initialized to 0, and the attacker could bypass this restriction even without the victim's private key.

Severity

7.5 (High)


                  
                    CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Show details on source website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "affected": [],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2018-12025"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-20"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": false,
    "github_reviewed_at": null,
    "nvd_published_at": "2018-06-11T10:29:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "The transferFrom function of a smart contract implementation for FuturXE (FXE), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to accomplish an unauthorized transfer of digital assets because of a logic error. The developer messed up with the boolean judgment - if the input value is smaller than or equal to allowed value, the transfer session would stop execution by returning false. This makes no sense, because the transferFrom() function should require the transferring value to not exceed the allowed value in the first place. Suppose this function asks for the allowed value to be smaller than the input. Then, the attacker could easily ignore the allowance: after this condition, the `allowed[from][msg.sender] -= value;` would cause an underflow because the allowed part is smaller than the value. The attacker could transfer any amount of FuturXe tokens of any accounts to an appointed account (the `_to` address) because the allowed value is initialized to 0, and the attacker could bypass this restriction even without the victim\u0027s private key.",
  "id": "GHSA-36w2-wp3m-gg7j",
  "modified": "2022-05-14T03:10:11Z",
  "published": "2022-05-14T03:10:11Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2018-12025"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://medium.com/secbit-media/bugged-smart-contract-f-e-how-could-someone-mess-up-with-boolean-d2251defd6ff"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.0/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ]
}

CVE-2018-12025 (GCVE-0-2018-12025)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2018-06-11 10:00 – Updated: 2024-08-05 08:24

Summary

The transferFrom function of a smart contract implementation for FuturXE (FXE), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to accomplish an unauthorized transfer of digital assets because of a logic error. The developer messed up with the boolean judgment - if the input value is smaller than or equal to allowed value, the transfer session would stop execution by returning false. This makes no sense, because the transferFrom() function should require the transferring value to not exceed the allowed value in the first place. Suppose this function asks for the allowed value to be smaller than the input. Then, the attacker could easily ignore the allowance: after this condition, the `allowed[from][msg.sender] -= value;` would cause an underflow because the allowed part is smaller than the value. The attacker could transfer any amount of FuturXe tokens of any accounts to an appointed account (the `_to` address) because the allowed value is initialized to 0, and the attacker could bypass this restriction even without the victim's private key.

Severity

No CVSS data available.

CWE

Assigner

mitre

References

1 reference

URL	Tags
https://medium.com/secbit-media/bugged-smart-cont…	x_refsource_MISC

Date Public

2018-06-11 00:00

Show details on NVD website

JSON

To clipboard

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-08-05T08:24:03.670Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://medium.com/secbit-media/bugged-smart-contract-f-e-how-could-someone-mess-up-with-boolean-d2251defd6ff"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "n/a",
          "vendor": "n/a",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "n/a"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "datePublic": "2018-06-11T00:00:00.000Z",
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "The transferFrom function of a smart contract implementation for FuturXE (FXE), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to accomplish an unauthorized transfer of digital assets because of a logic error. The developer messed up with the boolean judgment - if the input value is smaller than or equal to allowed value, the transfer session would stop execution by returning false. This makes no sense, because the transferFrom() function should require the transferring value to not exceed the allowed value in the first place. Suppose this function asks for the allowed value to be smaller than the input. Then, the attacker could easily ignore the allowance: after this condition, the `allowed[from][msg.sender] -= value;` would cause an underflow because the allowed part is smaller than the value. The attacker could transfer any amount of FuturXe tokens of any accounts to an appointed account (the `_to` address) because the allowed value is initialized to 0, and the attacker could bypass this restriction even without the victim\u0027s private key."
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "description": "n/a",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "text"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2018-06-11T09:57:01.000Z",
        "orgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
        "shortName": "mitre"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://medium.com/secbit-media/bugged-smart-contract-f-e-how-could-someone-mess-up-with-boolean-d2251defd6ff"
        }
      ],
      "x_legacyV4Record": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "cve@mitre.org",
          "ID": "CVE-2018-12025",
          "STATE": "PUBLIC"
        },
        "affects": {
          "vendor": {
            "vendor_data": [
              {
                "product": {
                  "product_data": [
                    {
                      "product_name": "n/a",
                      "version": {
                        "version_data": [
                          {
                            "version_value": "n/a"
                          }
                        ]
                      }
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "vendor_name": "n/a"
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "eng",
              "value": "The transferFrom function of a smart contract implementation for FuturXE (FXE), an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to accomplish an unauthorized transfer of digital assets because of a logic error. The developer messed up with the boolean judgment - if the input value is smaller than or equal to allowed value, the transfer session would stop execution by returning false. This makes no sense, because the transferFrom() function should require the transferring value to not exceed the allowed value in the first place. Suppose this function asks for the allowed value to be smaller than the input. Then, the attacker could easily ignore the allowance: after this condition, the `allowed[from][msg.sender] -= value;` would cause an underflow because the allowed part is smaller than the value. The attacker could transfer any amount of FuturXe tokens of any accounts to an appointed account (the `_to` address) because the allowed value is initialized to 0, and the attacker could bypass this restriction even without the victim\u0027s private key."
            }
          ]
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "eng",
                  "value": "n/a"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://medium.com/secbit-media/bugged-smart-contract-f-e-how-could-someone-mess-up-with-boolean-d2251defd6ff",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://medium.com/secbit-media/bugged-smart-contract-f-e-how-could-someone-mess-up-with-boolean-d2251defd6ff"
            }
          ]
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "8254265b-2729-46b6-b9e3-3dfca2d5bfca",
    "assignerShortName": "mitre",
    "cveId": "CVE-2018-12025",
    "datePublished": "2018-06-11T10:00:00.000Z",
    "dateReserved": "2018-06-07T00:00:00.000Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2024-08-05T08:24:03.670Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1"
}

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.

Action not permitted

GHSA-36W2-WP3M-GG7J

CVE-2018-12025 (GCVE-0-2018-12025)

Tags

Sightings

Nomenclature