CVE-2024-24563 – vyper

Package

Manager: pip
Name: vyper
Vulnerable Version: >=0 <0.4.0

Severity

Level: Critical

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

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

EPSS: 0.00169 pctl0.38499

Details

Vyper negative array index bounds checks ### Summary Arrays can be keyed by a signed integer, while they are defined for unsigned integers only. The typechecker doesn't throw when spotting the usage of an `int` as an index for an array. Typically, negative integers are filtered out at runtime by the bounds checker, but small enough (i.e. large in magnitude, ex. `-2**255 + 5`) quantities combined with large enough arrays (at least `2**255` in length) can pass the bounds checker, resulting in unexpected behavior. A contract search was performed, and no production contracts were found to be impacted. ### Details The typechecker allows the usage of signed integers to be used as indexes to arrays. The vulnerability is present in different forms in all versions. Here is an example from `0.3.10`: https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/c150fc49ee9375a930d177044559b83cb95f7963/vyper/semantics/types/subscriptable.py#L127-L137 As can be seen, the validation is performed against `IntegerT.any()`. ### PoC If the array is sufficiently large, it can be indexed with a negative value: ```python arr: public(uint256[MAX_UINT256]) @external def set(idx: int256, num: uint256): self.arr[idx] = num ``` For signed integers, the 2's complement representation is used. Because the array was declared very large, the bounds checking will pass (negative values will simply be represented as very large numbers): https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/a1fd228cb9936c3e4bbca6f3ee3fb4426ef45490/vyper/codegen/core.py#L534-L541 ### Patches Patched in https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3817. ### Impact There are two potential vulnerability classes: unpredictable behavior and accessing inaccessible elements. 1. If it is possible to index an array with a negative integer without reverting, this is most likely not anticipated by the developer and such accesses can cause unpredictable behavior for the contract. 2. If a contract has an invariant in the form `assert index < x` where both `index` and `x` are signed integers, the developer might suppose that no elements on indexes `y | y >= x` are accessible. However, by using negative indexes this can be bypassed. The contract search found no production contracts impacted by these two classes of issues.

Metadata

Created: 2024-02-07T17:27:58Z
Modified: 2024-11-22T20:46:17Z
Source: https://github.com/github/advisory-database/blob/main/advisories/github-reviewed/2024/02/GHSA-52xq-j7v9-v4v2/GHSA-52xq-j7v9-v4v2.json
CWE IDs: ["CWE-129"]
Alternative ID: GHSA-52xq-j7v9-v4v2
Finding: F184
Auto approve: 1