Search criteria
ⓘ
Use this form to refine search results.
Full-text search supports keyword queries with ranking and filtering.
You can combine vendor, product, and sources to narrow results.
Enable “Apply ordering” to sort by date instead of relevance.
2 vulnerabilities found for lodestar by chainsafe
CVE-2022-29219 (GCVE-0-2022-29219)
Vulnerability from nvd – Published: 2022-05-24 14:15 – Updated: 2025-04-23 18:22
VLAI?
Title
Integer Overflow in Lodestar
Summary
Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers 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. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, 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 one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.
Severity ?
7.5 (High)
CWE
- CWE-190 - Integer Overflow or Wraparound
Assigner
References
| URL | Tags | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2024-08-03T06:17:54.286Z",
"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"shortName": "CVE"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
},
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
},
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
}
],
"title": "CVE Program Container"
},
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2022-29219",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-04-23T15:54:48.726800Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-23T18:22:36.298Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "lodestar",
"vendor": "ChainSafe",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 0.36.0"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers 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. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, 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 one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-190",
"description": "CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2022-05-24T14:15:14.000Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
},
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
},
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Integer Overflow in Lodestar",
"x_legacyV4Record": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
"ID": "CVE-2022-29219",
"STATE": "PUBLIC",
"TITLE": "Integer Overflow in Lodestar"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "lodestar",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "\u003c 0.36.0"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "ChainSafe"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers 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. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, 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 one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus."
}
]
},
"impact": {
"cvss": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
}
]
},
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
}
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2022-29219",
"datePublished": "2022-05-24T14:15:14.000Z",
"dateReserved": "2022-04-13T00:00:00.000Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-23T18:22:36.298Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}
CVE-2022-29219 (GCVE-0-2022-29219)
Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2022-05-24 14:15 – Updated: 2025-04-23 18:22
VLAI?
Title
Integer Overflow in Lodestar
Summary
Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers 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. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, 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 one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.
Severity ?
7.5 (High)
CWE
- CWE-190 - Integer Overflow or Wraparound
Assigner
References
| URL | Tags | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|||||||||||
{
"containers": {
"adp": [
{
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2024-08-03T06:17:54.286Z",
"orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
"shortName": "CVE"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
},
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
},
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC",
"x_transferred"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
}
],
"title": "CVE Program Container"
},
{
"metrics": [
{
"other": {
"content": {
"id": "CVE-2022-29219",
"options": [
{
"Exploitation": "none"
},
{
"Automatable": "yes"
},
{
"Technical Impact": "partial"
}
],
"role": "CISA Coordinator",
"timestamp": "2025-04-23T15:54:48.726800Z",
"version": "2.0.3"
},
"type": "ssvc"
}
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-23T18:22:36.298Z",
"orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
"shortName": "CISA-ADP"
},
"title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
}
],
"cna": {
"affected": [
{
"product": "lodestar",
"vendor": "ChainSafe",
"versions": [
{
"status": "affected",
"version": "\u003c 0.36.0"
}
]
}
],
"descriptions": [
{
"lang": "en",
"value": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers 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. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, 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 one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus."
}
],
"metrics": [
{
"cvssV3_1": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
}
],
"problemTypes": [
{
"descriptions": [
{
"cweId": "CWE-190",
"description": "CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound",
"lang": "en",
"type": "CWE"
}
]
}
],
"providerMetadata": {
"dateUpdated": "2022-05-24T14:15:14.000Z",
"orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"shortName": "GitHub_M"
},
"references": [
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_CONFIRM"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
},
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
},
{
"tags": [
"x_refsource_MISC"
],
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
}
],
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
},
"title": "Integer Overflow in Lodestar",
"x_legacyV4Record": {
"CVE_data_meta": {
"ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
"ID": "CVE-2022-29219",
"STATE": "PUBLIC",
"TITLE": "Integer Overflow in Lodestar"
},
"affects": {
"vendor": {
"vendor_data": [
{
"product": {
"product_data": [
{
"product_name": "lodestar",
"version": {
"version_data": [
{
"version_value": "\u003c 0.36.0"
}
]
}
}
]
},
"vendor_name": "ChainSafe"
}
]
}
},
"data_format": "MITRE",
"data_type": "CVE",
"data_version": "4.0",
"description": {
"description_data": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers 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. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, 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 one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus."
}
]
},
"impact": {
"cvss": {
"attackComplexity": "LOW",
"attackVector": "NETWORK",
"availabilityImpact": "NONE",
"baseScore": 7.5,
"baseSeverity": "HIGH",
"confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
"integrityImpact": "HIGH",
"privilegesRequired": "NONE",
"scope": "UNCHANGED",
"userInteraction": "NONE",
"vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
"version": "3.1"
}
},
"problemtype": {
"problemtype_data": [
{
"description": [
{
"lang": "eng",
"value": "CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound"
}
]
}
]
},
"references": {
"reference_data": [
{
"name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
"refsource": "CONFIRM",
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
},
{
"name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0",
"refsource": "MISC",
"url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
}
]
},
"source": {
"advisory": "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
"discovery": "UNKNOWN"
}
}
}
},
"cveMetadata": {
"assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
"assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
"cveId": "CVE-2022-29219",
"datePublished": "2022-05-24T14:15:14.000Z",
"dateReserved": "2022-04-13T00:00:00.000Z",
"dateUpdated": "2025-04-23T18:22:36.298Z",
"state": "PUBLISHED"
},
"dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
"dataVersion": "5.1"
}