Skip to content
Log inStart free trial

GHSA-5h3x-9wvq-w4m2 CVE-2023-34234

OpenZeppelin Contracts's governor proposal creation may be blocked by frontrunning

Medium npm
Severity
5.3 / 10
Medium · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS)
0.60%
Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 48.44% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited
No
Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness
CWE-862 Missing Authorization
Fix
Available
2 packages have a fixed version

Description

Impact

By frontrunning the creation of a proposal, an attacker can become the proposer and gain the ability to cancel it. The attacker can do this repeatedly to try to prevent a proposal from being proposed at all.

This impacts the Governor contract in v4.9.0 only, and the GovernorCompatibilityBravo contract since v4.3.0.

Patches

The problem has been patched in 4.9.1 by introducing opt-in frontrunning protection.

Workarounds

Submit the proposal creation transaction to an endpoint with frontrunning protection.

Credit

Reported by Lior Abadi and Joaquin Pereyra from Coinspect.

References

https://www.coinspect.com/openzeppelin-governor-dos/

Affected versions

npm

PackageVulnerableFixed in
@openzeppelin/contracts
>= 4.3.0, < 4.9.1
4.9.1
@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable
>= 4.3.0, < 4.9.1
4.9.1

How to fix

Move to the fixed version or later with your package manager, update the lockfile, and run your tests. If the package only arrives through another dependency, upgrade that dependency first. If none of its releases pulls a fixed version yet, force the version with your package manager's override.

@openzeppelin/contracts npm → 4.9.1

npm
npm install @openzeppelin/contracts@4.9.1
yarn
yarn add @openzeppelin/contracts@4.9.1
pnpm
pnpm add @openzeppelin/contracts@4.9.1

@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable npm → 4.9.1

npm
npm install @openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable@4.9.1
yarn
yarn add @openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable@4.9.1
pnpm
pnpm add @openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable@4.9.1

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 5.3

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:L

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
Low

Weakness

CWE-862: Missing Authorization

The product does not perform an authorization check when an actor attempts to access a resource or perform an action.

How to prevent it
  • Architecture and Design: Divide the product into anonymous, normal, privileged, and administrative areas. Reduce the attack surface by carefully mapping roles with data and functionality. Use role-based access control (RBAC) [REF-229] to enforce the roles at the appropriate boundaries. Note that this approach may not protect against horizontal authorization, i.e., it will not protect a user from attacking others with the same role.
  • Architecture and Design: Ensure that access control checks are performed related to the business logic. These checks may be different than the access control checks that are applied to more generic resources such as files, connections, processes, memory, and database records. For example, a database may restrict access for medical records to a specific database user, but each record might only be intended to be accessible to the patient and the patient's doctor [REF-7].
  • Architecture and Design: Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. For example, consider using authorization frameworks such as the JAAS Authorization Framework [REF-233] and the OWASP ESAPI Access Control feature [REF-45].
  • Architecture and Design: For web applications, make sure that the access control mechanism is enforced correctly at the server side on every page. Users should not be able to access any unauthorized functionality or information by simply requesting direct access to that page. One way to do this is to ensure that all pages containing sensitive information are not cached, and that all such pages restrict access to requests that are accompanied by an active and authenticated session token associated with a user who has the required permissions to access that page.
  • System Configuration, Installation: Use the access control capabilities of your operating system and server environment and define your access control lists accordingly. Use a "default deny" policy when defining these ACLs.

References

Advisories

Packages

Other links

Timeline

  1. Published
  2. Last updated by the source
  3. Latest EPSS score
AdvisorySeverityWhy it's related
GHSA-9rcw-c2f9-2j55
OpenZeppelin Contracts Bytes's lastIndexOf function with position argument performs out-of-bound memory access on empty buffers
Medium Also affects @openzeppelin/contracts
GHSA-9vx6-7xxf-x967
OpenZeppelin Contracts base64 encoding may read from potentially dirty memory
High Also affects @openzeppelin/contracts
GHSA-699g-q6qh-q4v8
OpenZeppelin Contracts and Contracts Upgradeable duplicated execution of subcalls in v4.9.4
High Also affects @openzeppelin/contracts
GHSA-g4vp-m682-qqmp
OpenZeppelin Contracts vulnerable to Improper Escaping of Output
Medium Also affects @openzeppelin/contracts
GHSA-wprv-93r4-jj2p
OpenZeppelin Contracts using MerkleProof multiproofs may allow proving arbitrary leaves for specific trees
Medium Also affects @openzeppelin/contracts
GHSA-mx2q-35m2-x2rh
OpenZeppelin Contracts TransparentUpgradeableProxy clashing selector calls may not be delegated
Medium Also affects @openzeppelin/contracts
GHSA-93hq-5wgc-jc82
GovernorCompatibilityBravo may trim proposal calldata
High Also affects @openzeppelin/contracts
GHSA-878m-3g6q-594q
OpenZeppelin Contracts contains Incorrect Calculation
Medium Also affects @openzeppelin/contracts
Is this in your code?

MergeHarbor checks every repository's dependencies against this database, ranks what matters by exploitability and reachability, routes it to the owning team and opens the fix pull request.

Check your repos with MergeHarbor