GHSA-F5X6-7QGP-JHF3
Vulnerability from github – Published: 2023-07-25 17:46 – Updated: 2024-11-19 16:44Impact
the ecrecover precompile does not fill the output buffer if the signature does not verify, see https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/b058cf454b3bdc7e770e2b3cec83a0bcb48f55ee/core/vm/contracts.go#L188. however, the ecrecover builtin will still return whatever is at memory location 0.
this means that the if the compiler has been convinced to write to the 0 memory location with specially crafted data (generally, this can happen with a hashmap access or immutable read) just before the ecrecover, a signature check might pass on an invalid signature.
A contract search was performed. Most uses of ecrecover are used for erc2612-style permit implementations, which typically look like:
assert _owner != empty(address)
assert block.timestamp <= _deadline
nonce: uint256 = self.nonces[_owner]
digest: bytes32 = keccak256(
concat(
b"\x19\x01",
self.DOMAIN_SEPARATOR,
keccak256(_abi_encode(PERMIT_TYPEHASH, _owner, _spender, _value, nonce, _deadline))
)
)
assert ecrecover(digest, convert(_v, uint256), convert(_r, uint256), convert(_s, uint256)) == _owner
in this case, the immutable PERMIT_TYPEHASH is loaded into ecrecover's output buffer right before ecrecover(), and so the output of ecrecover() here when the signature is invalid will be the value of PERMIT_TYPEHASH. in this case, since PERMIT_TYPEHASH is not a valid address, it will never compare == to _owner, and so the behaviour is exactly the same as if ecrecover() returned 0 in this case.
in general, a contract could have unexpected behavior (i.e. mistakenly pass this style of signature check) if an immutable representing a real address (ex. OWNER) was read right before the ecrecover operation.
Patches
v0.3.10 (with 019a37ab98ff53f04fecfadf602b6cd5ac748f7f and #3586)
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?
References
Are there any links users can visit to find out more?
{
"affected": [
{
"package": {
"ecosystem": "PyPI",
"name": "vyper"
},
"ranges": [
{
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.3.10"
}
],
"type": "ECOSYSTEM"
}
]
}
],
"aliases": [
"CVE-2023-37902"
],
"database_specific": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-252"
],
"github_reviewed": true,
"github_reviewed_at": "2023-07-25T17:46:19Z",
"nvd_published_at": "2023-07-25T21:15:10Z",
"severity": "MODERATE"
},
"details": "### Impact\nthe ecrecover precompile does not fill the output buffer if the signature does not verify, see https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/b058cf454b3bdc7e770e2b3cec83a0bcb48f55ee/core/vm/contracts.go#L188. however, the ecrecover builtin will still return whatever is at memory location 0.\n\nthis means that the if the compiler has been convinced to write to the 0 memory location with specially crafted data (generally, this can happen with a hashmap access or immutable read) just before the ecrecover, a signature check might pass on an invalid signature.\n\nA contract search was performed. Most uses of `ecrecover` are used for erc2612-style permit implementations, which typically look like:\n\n```vyper\n assert _owner != empty(address)\n assert block.timestamp \u003c= _deadline\n \n nonce: uint256 = self.nonces[_owner]\n digest: bytes32 = keccak256(\n concat( \n b\"\\x19\\x01\",\n self.DOMAIN_SEPARATOR,\n keccak256(_abi_encode(PERMIT_TYPEHASH, _owner, _spender, _value, nonce, _deadline))\n ) \n ) \n assert ecrecover(digest, convert(_v, uint256), convert(_r, uint256), convert(_s, uint256)) == _owner\n```\n\nin this case, the immutable `PERMIT_TYPEHASH` is loaded into `ecrecover`\u0027s output buffer right before `ecrecover()`, and so the output of `ecrecover()` here when the signature is invalid will be the value of `PERMIT_TYPEHASH`. in this case, since `PERMIT_TYPEHASH` is not a valid address, it will never compare `==` to `_owner`, and so the behaviour is exactly the same as if `ecrecover()` returned 0 in this case.\n\nin general, a contract could have unexpected behavior (i.e. mistakenly pass this style of signature check) if an immutable representing a real address (ex. `OWNER`) was read right before the `ecrecover` operation.\n\n### Patches\nv0.3.10 (with 019a37ab98ff53f04fecfadf602b6cd5ac748f7f and #3586)\n\n### Workarounds\n_Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?_\n\n### References\n_Are there any links users can visit to find out more?_\n",
"id": "GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3",
"modified": "2024-11-19T16:44:35Z",
"published": "2023-07-25T17:46:19Z",
"references": [
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3"
},
{
"type": "ADVISORY",
"url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-37902"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/019a37ab98ff53f04fecfadf602b6cd5ac748f7f"
},
{
"type": "WEB",
"url": "https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vyper/PYSEC-2023-133.yaml"
},
{
"type": "PACKAGE",
"url": "https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper"
}
],
"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"
},
{
"score": "CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:L/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N",
"type": "CVSS_V4"
}
],
"summary": "ecrecover can return undefined data if signature does not verify"
}
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.