CVE-2022-29219 – @chainsafe/lodestar

Package

Manager: npm
Name: @chainsafe/lodestar
Vulnerable Version: >=0 <0.36.0

Severity

Level: High

CVSS v3.1: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

CVSS v4.0: CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N

EPSS: 0.00274 pctl0.50485

Details

AttesterSlashing number overflow ### Impact Possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Since we 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. ### Patches https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977 ### Workarounds 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 we will carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.

Metadata

Created: 2022-05-24T22:21:10Z
Modified: 2022-05-24T22:21:10Z
Source: https://github.com/github/advisory-database/blob/main/advisories/github-reviewed/2022/05/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9.json
CWE IDs: ["CWE-190"]
Alternative ID: GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9
Finding: F111
Auto approve: 1