CVE-2024-24567

mediumpriority · track · 21EPSS 0.005 · 42 %ileEUUS
grimoire priorityP3 · Track
Exploitable?
—
no known exploitation
Likely / severe?
0.48% (42nd) EPSS
CVSS 5.3 · medium
Is it mine?
5 products
Check your exposure
Who says so?
4 sources
cnnvd · enisa_euvd · osv · nvd

EPSS · 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.

01

cvss

Technical severity, 0–10. One row per scoring source.

5.3
010

base score 0–10 · higher = more severe · hover a vector to decode

v3.15.3mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:Nprimary · NVD / NIST USexploitability 3.9 · impact 1.4
v3.14.8mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:Lsecondary · ENISA EU
v3.14.8mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:Lsecondary · security-advisories@github.comexploitability 2.2 · impact 2.5
v3.14.8mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:Lsecondary · OSV
v3.14.9mediumCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N/E:Usecondary · CVSS-BT (t0sche)
02

ssvc

A stakeholder decision — act, attend, or track — from exploitation and impact.

Exploitation: poc · Automatable: no · Technical Impact: partialcoordinatorcisa_ssvcUS
03

weaknesses

The CWE weakness classes this flaw belongs to.

04

affected products (5)

Products and version ranges known to be affected.

05

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.

06

also known as (6)

Other names and identifiers for this entity.

07

sources

Which sources assert this record, and when.

published 2024-01-30modified 2026-06-17
08

references (7)

External citations — patches, advisories, analysis.

scry

Attackers weaponise vulnerabilities like this against internet-exposed services. See what is exposed on your perimeter with a free passive scan.

Free scan