GHSA-PPX5-Q359-PVWJ
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2024-04-25 19:53 – Updated: 2024-04-25 19:53Summary
When looping over a range of the form range(start, start + N), if start is negative, the execution will always revert.
Details
This issue is caused by an incorrect assertion inserted by the code generation of the range (stmt.parse_For_range()):
https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/codegen/stmt.py#L286-L287
This assertion was introduced in https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/3de1415ee77a9244eb04bdb695e249d3ec9ed868 to fix https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-6r8q-pfpv-7cgj. The issue arises when start is signed, instead of using sle, le is used and start is interpreted as an unsigned integer for the comparison. If it is a negative number, its 255th bit is set to 1 and is hence interpreted as a very large unsigned integer making the assertion always fail.
PoC
@external
def foo():
x:int256 = min_value(int256)
# revert when it should not since we have the following assertion that fails:
# [assert, [le, min_value(int256), max_value(int256) + 1 - 10]],
for i in range(x, x + 10):
pass
Patches
patched in v0.4.0, specifically, https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3679 disallows this form of range().
Impact
Any contract having a range(start, start + N) where start is a signed integer with the possibility for start to be negative is affected. If a call goes through the loop while supplying a negative start the execution will revert.
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "vyper"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0.3.8"
},
{
"fixed": "0.4.0"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2024-32481"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-681"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2024-04-25T19:53:43Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2024-04-25T17:15:50Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Summary\n\nWhen looping over a `range` of the form `range(start, start + N)`, if `start` is negative, the execution will always revert.\n \n### Details\n\nThis issue is caused by an incorrect assertion inserted by the code generation of the range (`stmt.parse_For_range()`):\n\nhttps://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/codegen/stmt.py#L286-L287\n\nThis assertion was introduced in https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/3de1415ee77a9244eb04bdb695e249d3ec9ed868 to fix https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-6r8q-pfpv-7cgj. The issue arises when `start` is signed, instead of using `sle`, `le` is used and `start` is interpreted as an unsigned integer for the comparison. If it is a negative number, its 255th bit is set to `1` and is hence interpreted as a very large unsigned integer making the assertion always fail. \n### PoC\n\n```Vyper\n@external\ndef foo():\n x:int256 = min_value(int256)\n # revert when it should not since we have the following assertion that fails:\n # [assert, [le, min_value(int256), max_value(int256) + 1 - 10]],\n for i in range(x, x + 10):\n pass\n```\n\n### Patches\n\npatched in v0.4.0, specifically, https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3679 disallows this form of `range()`.\n\n### Impact\n\nAny contract having a `range(start, start + N)` where `start` is a signed integer with the possibility for `start` to be negative is affected. If a call goes through the loop while supplying a negative `start` the execution will revert.",
"id": "GHSA-ppx5-q359-pvwj",
"modified": "2024-04-25T19:53:43Z",
"published": "2024-04-25T19:53:43Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-ppx5-q359-pvwj"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-32481"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/3de1415ee77a9244eb04bdb695e249d3ec9ed868"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/5319cfbe14951e007ccdb323257e5ada869b35d5"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/codegen/stmt.py#L286-L287"
}
],
"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"
}
],
"summary": "vyper\u0027s range(start, start + N) reverts for negative numbers"
}
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.
The approach is described in our paper Mapping CVEs to MITRE ATT&CK Techniques: A Curated Gold-Set Classifier and the Limits of LLM-Assisted Label Expansion.
Browse all ATT&CK techniques and the vulnerabilities related to each.
Related by attack behaviour
Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.