| CVE |
Vendors |
Products |
Updated |
CVSS v3.1 |
| Vyper from 0.2.13 before 0.2.15 allocates storage slots for @nonreentrant reentrancy locks at the same locations as contract storage variables. When a function using @nonreentrant is called, setting the lock overwrites the overlapping storage variable, corrupting contract state and breaking the contract's intended logic. |
| Vyper from 0.1.0b10 before 0.2.3 generates incorrect code for a return statement inside a for loop in an internal function called two or more internal calls deep, producing an invalid jump destination (stack underflow). Affected contracts revert such calls unnecessarily, which in limited circumstances could enable denial of service against public contracts. |
| Vyper from 0.1.0b4 before 0.3.0 contains a memory corruption vulnerability caused by an incorrect stack tip pointer when internal function calls are performed inside arrays. Contracts placing internal calls in nested array elements, external call arguments, struct literals, or raw_log topics can have memory corrupted, producing incorrect contract behavior. |
| Vyper before 0.2.9 deploys forwarder proxies through the built-in create_forwarder_to function that report a fixed 4096-byte RETURNDATASIZE rather than the actual return data size. Calls through these proxies can yield corrupted data when a function returns more than 4096 bytes without return data sanitation, and fail strict return-size checks such as SafeERC20.safeTransfer. |
| Vyper before 0.3.1 lacks a uint8 type, allowing interface return values declared as uint8, such as ERC20.decimals(), to be stored in uint256 variables without bounds checking. Malicious contracts can return values greater than 255 to manipulate or bypass contract logic that relies on these values. |
| Vyper before 0.2.6 contains a call stack corruption vulnerability that causes incorrect function outputs when complex types with non-base members are passed as arguments. Contracts passing multi-dimensional arrays or structs to internal or external functions receive corrupted values because the compiler assumed each subtype size is 32. |
| Vyper from 0.1.0b4 before 0.3.0 contains a memory corruption vulnerability caused by an incorrect stack tip pointer when internal function calls appear inside tuples or nested calls. Contracts using such calls as tuple elements, call arguments, or builtin arguments like concat or ecrecover can return corrupted values or pass wrong arguments to external calls. |
| Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum Virtual Machine. 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. 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, including `0.3.10`. For ints, 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. As of time of publication, a fixed version does not exist.
There are three potential vulnerability classes: unpredictable behavior, accessing inaccessible elements and denial of service. Class 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. Class 2: If a contract has an invariant in the form `assert index < x`, the developer will suppose that no elements on indexes `y | y >= x` are accessible. However, by using negative indexes, this can be bypassed. Class 3: If the index is dependent on the state of the contract, this poses a risk of denial of service. If the state of the contract can be manipulated in such way that the index will be forced to be negative, the array access can always revert (because most likely the array won't be declared extremely large). However, all these the scenarios are highly unlikely. Most likely behavior is a revert on the bounds check. |
| Vyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the ethereum virtual machine. In versions 0.3.10 and earlier, the bounds check for slices does not account for the ability for start + length to overflow when the values aren't literals. If a slice() function uses a non-literal argument for the start or length variable, this creates the ability for an attacker to overflow the bounds check. This issue can be used to do OOB access to storage, memory or calldata addresses. It can also be used to corrupt the length slot of the respective array.
|
| Vyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the ethereum virtual machine. Vyper compiler allows passing a value in builtin raw_call even if the call is a delegatecall or a staticcall. But in the context of delegatecall and staticcall the handling of value is not possible due to the semantics of the respective opcodes, and vyper will silently ignore the value= argument. If the semantics of the EVM are unknown to the developer, he could suspect that by specifying the `value` kwarg, exactly the given amount will be sent along to the target. This vulnerability affects 0.3.10 and earlier versions. |
| Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum Virtual Machine. The `concat` built-in can write over the bounds of the memory buffer that was allocated for it and thus overwrite existing valid data. The root cause is that the `build_IR` for `concat` doesn't properly adhere to the API of copy functions (for `>=0.3.2` the `copy_bytes` function). A contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production. The buffer overflow can result in the change of semantics of the contract. The overflow is length-dependent and thus it might go unnoticed during contract testing. However, certainly not all usages of concat will result in overwritten valid data as we require it to be in an internal function and close to the return statement where other memory allocations don't occur. This issue has been addressed in 0.4.0. |
| Vyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum virtual machine. Starting in version 0.3.8 and prior to version 0.4.0b1, when looping over a `range` of the form `range(start, start + N)`, if `start` is negative, the execution will always revert. This issue is caused by an incorrect assertion inserted by the code generation of the range `stmt.parse_For_range()`. The issue arises when `start` is signed, instead of using `sle`, `le` is used and `start` is interpreted as an unsigned integer for the comparison. If it is a negative number, its 255th bit is set to `1` and is hence interpreted as a very large unsigned integer making the assertion always fail. Any contract having a `range(start, start + N)` where `start` is a signed integer with the possibility for `start` to be negative is affected. If a call goes through the loop while supplying a negative `start` the execution will revert. Version 0.4.0b1 fixes the issue. |
| Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum Virtual Machine. In version 0.3.1 and prior, bytestrings can have dirty bytes in them, resulting in the word-for-word comparisons giving incorrect results. Even without dirty nonzero bytes, two bytestrings can compare to equal if one ends with `"\x00"` because there is no comparison of the length. A patch is available and expected to be part of the 0.3.2 release. There are currently no known workarounds. |
| Vyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the ethereum virtual machine. Versions of vyper prior to 0.3.2 suffer from a potential buffer overrun. Importing a function from a JSON interface which returns `bytes` generates bytecode which does not clamp bytes length, potentially resulting in a buffer overrun. Users are advised to upgrade. There are no known workarounds for this issue. |
| Vyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the ethereum virtual machine. In affected versions, the return of `<iface>.returns_int128()` is not validated to fall within the bounds of `int128`. This issue can result in a misinterpretation of the integer value and lead to incorrect behavior. As of v0.3.0, `<iface>.returns_int128()` is validated in simple expressions, but not complex expressions. Users are advised to upgrade. There is no known workaround for this issue. |
| Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the ethereum virtual machine. In versions prior to 0.3.4 when a calling an external contract with no return value, the contract address (including side effects) could be evaluated twice. This may result in incorrect outcomes for contracts. This issue has been addressed in v0.3.4. |
| Vyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the ethereum virtual machine. In contracts with more than one regular nonpayable function, it is possible to send funds to the default function, even if the default function is marked `nonpayable`. This applies to contracts compiled with vyper versions prior to 0.3.8. This issue was fixed by the removal of the global `calldatasize` check in commit `02339dfda`. Users are advised to upgrade to version 0.3.8. Users unable to upgrade should avoid use of nonpayable default functions. |
| Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the ethereum virtual machine. In versions 0.3.1 through 0.3.7, the Vyper compiler generates the wrong bytecode. Any contract that uses the `raw_call` with `revert_on_failure=False` and `max_outsize=0` receives the wrong response from `raw_call`. Depending on the memory garbage, the result can be either `True` or `False`. A patch is available and, as of time of publication, anticipated to be part of Vyper 0.3.8. As a workaround, one may always put `max_outsize>0`. |
| Vyper is a pythonic smart contract language for the EVM. The storage allocator does not guard against allocation overflows in versions prior to 0.3.8. An attacker can overwrite the owner variable. This issue was fixed in version 0.3.8.
|
| Vyper is a Pythonic smart contract language for the Ethereum virtual machine. Prior to version 0.3.8, due to missing overflow check for loop variables, by assigning the iterator of a loop to a variable, it is possible to overflow the type of the latter. The issue seems to happen only in loops of type `for i in range(a, a + N)` as in loops of type `for i in range(start, stop)` and `for i in range(stop)`, the compiler is able to raise a `TypeMismatch` when trying to overflow the variable. The problem has been patched in version 0.3.8. |
