GHSA-j2x6-9323-fp7h CVE-2022-24845 PYSEC-2022-198

Integer bounds error in Vyper

High PyPI

Severity: 8.8 / 10; High · CVSS 3.1
Exploit chance (EPSS): 1.43%; Chance of exploitation in the next 30 days. Higher than 72.96% of scored vulnerabilities.
Known exploited: No; Not in CISA's catalog
Weakness: CWE-190 Integer Overflow or Wraparound
Fix: 0.3.2; Upgrade vyper to this version or later

Description

Impact

in the following code, the return of <iface>.returns_int128() is not validated to fall within the bounds of int128. as of v0.3.0, <iface>.returns_int128() is validated in simple expressions, but not complex expressions.

interface iface:
    def returns_int128() -> int128: view
    def returns_Bytes33() -> Bytes[33]: view

x: iface
 
@external
def call_out():
    x: int128 = self.x.returns_int128()  # affected, <0.3.0
    y: uint256 = convert(self.x.returns_int128(), uint256)  # affected, <0.3.2
    z: Bytes[33] = concat(self.x.returns_Bytes33(), b"")  # affected >= 0.3.0, <0.3.2

Patches

0.3.2 (as of https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/049dbdc647b2ce838fae7c188e6bb09cf16e470b)

Workarounds

Break up operations involving external calls into multiple statements. For instance, instead of the example above, use

x: int128 = self.x.returns_int128()
y: uint256 = convert(x, uint256)

Affected versions

PyPI

Package	Vulnerable	Fixed in
vyper	`< 0.3.2`	`0.3.2`
vyper	`< 0.3.2`	`0.3.2`

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.

vyper PyPI → `0.3.2`

pip

pip install --upgrade "vyper>=0.3.2"

poetry

poetry add "vyper>=0.3.2"

uv

uv add "vyper>=0.3.2"

Severity breakdown

CVSS 3.1 8.8

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

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

Weakness

CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound

The product performs a calculation that can produce an integer overflow or wraparound when the logic assumes that the resulting value will always be larger than the original value. This occurs when an integer value is incremented to a value that is too large to store in the associated representation. When this occurs, the value may become a very small or negative number.

How to prevent it

Requirements: Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
Requirements: Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid. If possible, choose a language or compiler that performs automatic bounds checking.
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 [REF-1482]. Use libraries or frameworks that make it easier to handle numbers without unexpected consequences. Examples include safe integer handling packages such as SafeInt (C++) or IntegerLib (C or C++). [REF-106]
Implementation: Perform input validation on any numeric input by ensuring that it is within the expected range. Enforce that the input meets both the minimum and maximum requirements for the expected range. Use unsigned integers where possible. This makes it easier to perform validation for integer overflows. When signed integers are required, ensure that the range check includes minimum values as well as maximum values.
Implementation: Understand the programming language's underlying representation and how it interacts with numeric calculation (CWE-681). Pay close attention to byte size discrepancies, precision, signed/unsigned distinctions, truncation, conversion and casting between types, "not-a-number" calculations, and how the language handles numbers that are too large or too small for its underlying representation. [REF-7] Also be careful to account for 32-bit, 64-bit, and other potential differences that may affect the numeric representation.
Architecture and Design: For any security checks that are performed on the client side, ensure that these checks are duplicated on the server side, in order to avoid CWE-602. Attackers can bypass the client-side checks by modifying values after the checks have been performed, or by changing the client to remove the client-side checks entirely. Then, these modified values would be submitted to the server.
Implementation: Examine compiler warnings closely and eliminate problems with potential security implications, such as signed / unsigned mismatch in memory operations, or use of uninitialized variables. Even if the weakness is rarely exploitable, a single failure may lead to the compromise of the entire system.

References

Advisories

nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-24845

Packages

github.com/vyperlang/vyper

Timeline

Apr 13, 2022 Published
Nov 8, 2023 Last updated by the source
Oct 31, 2026 Latest EPSS score

Advisory	Severity	Why it's related
GHSA-2r3x-4mrv-mcxf Vyper: Memory corruption using function calls within tuples / nested calls	Medium	Also affects vyper
GHSA-4v7v-gqf9-ww2g Vyper: Call stack corruption when passing complex type containing non-base type members as argument	Medium	Also affects vyper
GHSA-vg88-3v92-rjx2 Vyper: Return inside for loop more than 1 level deep	Low	Also affects vyper
GHSA-3vcg-j39x-cwfm Vyper's `slice()` may elide side-effects when output length is 0	Low	Also affects vyper
GHSA-qhr6-mgqr-mchm Vyper's `concat()` builtin may elide side-effects for zero-length arguments	Low	Also affects vyper
GHSA-h33q-mhmp-8p67 Vyper has a double eval in For List Iter	High	Also affects vyper
GHSA-4w26-8p97-f4jp AugAssign evaluation order causing OOB write within the object in Vyper	Critical	Also affects vyper
GHSA-2p94-8669-xg86 Vyper's sqrt doesn't define rounding behavior	High	Also affects vyper

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