CVE-2024-24567
mediumpriority · track · 21EPSS 0.005 · 42 %ileEUUSEPSS · scored 2026-10-27
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.
cvss
Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.
base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode
ssvc
A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.
weaknesses
The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.
affected products (5)
Products and version ranges known to be affected.
advisories (2)
Vendor and ecosystem advisories describing this.
- GHSA-x2c2-q32w-4w6mVyper's raw_call `value=` kwargs not disabled for static and delegate calls2024-01-30ghsa · osvUS
### Summary 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. A contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production. ### Details The IR for `raw_call` is built in the `RawCall` class: https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L1100 However, the compiler doesn't validate that if either `delegatecall` or `staticall` are provided as kwargs, that `value` wasn't set. For example, the following compiles without errors: ```python raw_call(self, call_data2, max_outsize=255, is_delegate_call=True, value=msg.value/2) ``` ### Impact 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. However in fact, no `value` will be sent. Here is an example of an potentially problematic implementation of multicall utilizing the `raw_call` built-in: ```python value_accumulator: uint256 = empty(uint256) results: DynArray[Result, max_value(uint8)] = [] return_data: Bytes[max_value(uint8)] = b"" success: bool = empty(bool) for batch in data: msg_value: uint256 = batch.value value_accumulator = unsafe_add(value_accumulator, msg_value) if (batch.allow_failure == False): return_data = raw_call(self, batch.call_data, max_outsize=255, value=msg_value, is_delegate_call=True) success = True results.append(Result({success: success, return_data: return_data})) else: success, return_data = \ raw_call(self, batch.call_data, max_outsize=255, value=msg_value, is_delegate_call=True, revert_on_failure=False) results.append(Result({success: success, return_data: return_data})) assert msg.value == value_accumulator, "Multicall: value mismatch" return results ``` ### Patches Fixed in https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3755 ### 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?_
- PYSEC-2024-1512024-01-30vendor · osvUS
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.
also known as (6)
Other names and identifiers for this entity.
sources
Which sources assert this record, and when.
references (7)
External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.
- https://cxsecurity.com/cveshow/CVE-2024-24567/cnnvd
- https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L1100cnnvd
- https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-x2c2-q32w-4w6mcnnvd
- https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L1100enisa_euvd
- https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-x2c2-q32w-4w6menisa_euvd
- https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L1100Exploitnvd
- https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-x2c2-q32w-4w6mExploitVendor Advisorynvd
Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.
Free scan