ghsa-xw37-57qp-9mm4
Vulnerability from github
Impact
A consensus-vulnerability in Geth could cause a chain split, where vulnerable versions refuse to accept the canonical chain.
Description
A flaw was repoted at 2020-08-11 by John Youngseok Yang (Software Platform Lab), where a particular sequence of transactions could cause a consensus failure.
- Tx 1:
senderinvokescaller.callerinvokes0xaa.0xaahas 3 wei, does a self-destruct-to-self-
callerdoes a1 wei-call to0xaa, who thereby has 1 wei (the code in0xaastill executed, since the tx is still ongoing, but doesn't redo the selfdestruct, it takes a different path if callvalue is non-zero) -
Tx 2:
senderdoes a 5-wei call to 0xaa. No exec (since no code).
In geth, the result would be that 0xaa had 6 wei, whereas OE reported (correctly) 5 wei. Furthermore, in geth, if the second tx was not executed, the 0xaa would be destructed, resulting in 0 wei. Thus obviously wrong.
It was determined that the root cause was this commit from this PR. The semantics of createObject was subtly changd, into returning a non-nil object (with deleted=true) where it previously did not if the account had been destructed. This return value caused the new object to inherit the old balance:
golang
func (s *StateDB) CreateAccount(addr common.Address) {
newObj, prev := s.createObject(addr)
if prev != nil {
newObj.setBalance(prev.data.Balance)
}
}
It was determined that the minimal possible correct fix was
diff
+++ b/core/state/statedb.go
@@ -589,7 +589,10 @@ func (s *StateDB) createObject(addr common.Address) (newobj, prev *stateObject)
s.journal.append(resetObjectChange{prev: prev, prevdestruct: prevdestruct})
}
s.setStateObject(newobj)
- return newobj, prev
+ if prev != nil && !prev.deleted {
+ return newobj, prev
+ }
+ return newobj, nil
Patches
See above. The fix was included in Geth v1.9.20 "Paragade".
Credits
The bug was found by @johnyangk and reported via bounty@ethereum.org.
For more information
If you have any questions or comments about this advisory: * Open an issue in go-ethereum * Email us at security@ethereum.org
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "Go",
"name": "github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "1.9.4"
},
{
"fixed": "1.9.20"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2020-26265"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-682"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2021-05-21T21:15:07Z",
"nvd_published_at": null,
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\n\nA consensus-vulnerability in Geth could cause a chain split, where vulnerable versions refuse to accept the canonical chain. \n\n### Description\n\n\nA flaw was repoted at 2020-08-11 by John Youngseok Yang (Software Platform Lab), where a particular sequence of transactions could cause a consensus failure.\n\n- Tx 1:\n - `sender` invokes `caller`.\n - `caller` invokes `0xaa`. `0xaa` has 3 wei, does a self-destruct-to-self\n - `caller` does a `1 wei` -call to `0xaa`, who thereby has 1 wei (the code in `0xaa` still executed, since the tx is still ongoing, but doesn\u0027t redo the selfdestruct, it takes a different path if callvalue is non-zero)\n\n- Tx 2:\n - `sender` does a 5-wei call to 0xaa. No exec (since no code). \n\nIn geth, the result would be that `0xaa` had `6 wei`, whereas OE reported (correctly) `5` wei. Furthermore, in geth, if the second tx was not executed, the `0xaa` would be destructed, resulting in `0 wei`. Thus obviously wrong. \n\nIt was determined that the root cause was this [commit](https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/commit/223b950944f494a5b4e0957fd9f92c48b09037ad) from [this PR](https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/pull/19953). The semantics of `createObject` was subtly changd, into returning a non-nil object (with `deleted=true`) where it previously did not if the account had been destructed. This return value caused the new object to inherit the old `balance`:\n\n```golang\nfunc (s *StateDB) CreateAccount(addr common.Address) {\n\tnewObj, prev := s.createObject(addr)\n\tif prev != nil {\n\t\tnewObj.setBalance(prev.data.Balance)\n\t}\n}\n```\n\nIt was determined that the minimal possible correct fix was\n\n```diff\n+++ b/core/state/statedb.go\n@@ -589,7 +589,10 @@ func (s *StateDB) createObject(addr common.Address) (newobj, prev *stateObject)\n s.journal.append(resetObjectChange{prev: prev, prevdestruct: prevdestruct})\n }\n s.setStateObject(newobj)\n- return newobj, prev\n+ if prev != nil \u0026\u0026 !prev.deleted {\n+ return newobj, prev\n+ }\n+ return newobj, nil\n```\n\n### Patches\n\nSee above. The fix was included in Geth `v1.9.20` \"Paragade\".\n\n### Credits\n\nThe bug was found by @johnyangk and reported via bounty@ethereum.org.\n\n### For more information\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory:\n* Open an issue in [go-ethereum](https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum)\n* Email us at [security@ethereum.org](mailto:security@ethereum.org)",
"id": "GHSA-xw37-57qp-9mm4",
"modified": "2023-02-09T19:40:33Z",
"published": "2021-06-29T21:14:16Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/security/advisories/GHSA-xw37-57qp-9mm4"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2020-26265"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/pull/21080"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/pull/21409"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/commit/87c0ba92136a75db0ab2aba1046d4a9860375d6a"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/releases/tag/v1.9.20"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://pkg.go.dev/vuln/GO-2021-0105"
}
],
"schema_version": "1.4.0",
"severity": [
{
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"type": "CVSS_V3"
}
],
"summary": "Consensus flaw during block processing in github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum"
}
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.
- Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
- 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.