ghsa-853p-5678-hv8f
Vulnerability from github
Summary
The return value when using delegate call mechanics, either through CallBuilder::delegate
or ink_env::invoke_contract_delegate
, is being decoded incorrectly.
Description
Consider this minimal example:
``rust
// First contract, this will be performing a delegate call to the
Callee`.
[ink(storage)]
pub struct Caller { value: u128, }
[ink(message)]
pub fn get_value(&self, callee_code_hash: Hash) -> u128 { let result = build_call::() .delegate(callee_code_hash) .exec_input(ExecutionInput::new(Selector::new(ink::selector_bytes!( "get_value" )))) .returns::() .invoke();
result
}
// Different contract, using this code hash for the delegate call.
[ink(storage)]
pub struct Callee { value: u128, }
[ink(message)]
pub fn get_value(&self) -> u128 { self.value } ```
In this example we are executing the Callee
code in the context of the Caller
contract. This means we'll be using the storage values of the Caller
contract.
Running this code we expect the delegate call to return value
as it was stored in the Caller
contract. However, due to the reported bug a different value is returned (for the case of uint
s it is 256
times the expected value).
Impact
After conducting an analysis of the on-chain deployments of ink! contracts on Astar, Shiden, Aleph Zero, Amplitude and Pendulum, we have found that no contracts on those chains have been affected by the issue.
This bug was related to the mechanics around decoding a call's return buffer, which was changed as part of https://github.com/paritytech/ink/pull/1450. Since this feature was only released in ink! 4.0.0 no previous versions are affected.
Mitigations
If you have an ink! 4.x series contract, please update it to the 4.2.1 patch release that we just published.
Credits
Thank you Facundo Lerena from CoinFabrik for reporting this problem in a well-structured and responsible way.
{ "affected": [ { "package": { "ecosystem": "crates.io", "name": "ink" }, "ranges": [ { "events": [ { "introduced": "4.0.0" }, { "fixed": "4.2.1" } ], "type": "ECOSYSTEM" } ] }, { "package": { "ecosystem": "crates.io", "name": "ink_env" }, "ranges": [ { "events": [ { "introduced": "4.0.0" }, { "fixed": "4.2.1" } ], "type": "ECOSYSTEM" } ] } ], "aliases": [ "CVE-2023-34449" ], "database_specific": { "cwe_ids": [ "CWE-253", "CWE-754" ], "github_reviewed": true, "github_reviewed_at": "2023-06-14T20:11:38Z", "nvd_published_at": "2023-06-14T21:15:09Z", "severity": "MODERATE" }, "details": "### Summary\nThe return value when using delegate call mechanics, either through [`CallBuilder::delegate`](https://docs.rs/ink_env/4.2.0/ink_env/call/struct.CallBuilder.html#method.delegate) or [`ink_env::invoke_contract_delegate`](https://docs.rs/ink_env/4.2.0/ink_env/fn.invoke_contract_delegate.html), is being decoded incorrectly.\n\n### Description\nConsider this minimal example:\n\n```rust\n// First contract, this will be performing a delegate call to the `Callee`.\n#[ink(storage)]\npub struct Caller {\n value: u128,\n}\n\n#[ink(message)]\npub fn get_value(\u0026self, callee_code_hash: Hash) -\u003e u128 {\n let result = build_call::\u003cDefaultEnvironment\u003e()\n .delegate(callee_code_hash)\n .exec_input(ExecutionInput::new(Selector::new(ink::selector_bytes!(\n \"get_value\"\n ))))\n .returns::\u003cu128\u003e()\n .invoke();\n\n result\n}\n\n// Different contract, using this code hash for the delegate call.\n#[ink(storage)]\npub struct Callee {\n value: u128,\n}\n\n#[ink(message)]\npub fn get_value(\u0026self) -\u003e u128 {\n self.value\n}\n```\n\nIn this example we are executing the `Callee` code in the context of the `Caller` contract. This means we\u0027ll be using the storage values of the `Caller` contract.\n\nRunning this code we expect the delegate call to return `value` as it was stored in the `Caller` contract. However, due to the reported bug a different value is returned (for the case of `uint`s it is `256` times the expected value).\n\n### Impact\nAfter conducting an analysis of the on-chain deployments of ink! contracts on Astar, Shiden, Aleph Zero, Amplitude and Pendulum, we have found that no contracts on those chains have been affected by the issue.\n\nThis bug was related to the mechanics around decoding a call\u0027s return buffer, which was changed as part of https://github.com/paritytech/ink/pull/1450. Since this feature was only released in ink! 4.0.0 no previous versions are affected.\n\n### Mitigations\nIf you have an ink! 4.x series contract, please update it to the [4.2.1](https://github.com/paritytech/ink/releases/tag/v4.2.1) patch release that we just published. \n\n### Credits\nThank you Facundo Lerena from [CoinFabrik](https://www.coinfabrik.com) for reporting this problem in a well-structured and responsible way.", "id": "GHSA-853p-5678-hv8f", "modified": "2023-06-16T17:57:43Z", "published": "2023-06-14T20:11:38Z", "references": [ { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/paritytech/ink/security/advisories/GHSA-853p-5678-hv8f" }, { "type": "ADVISORY", "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2023-34449" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/paritytech/ink/pull/1450" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://github.com/paritytech/ink/commit/f1407ee9f87e5f64d467a22d26ee88f61db7f3db" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://docs.rs/ink_env/4.2.0/ink_env/call/struct.CallBuilder.html#method.delegate" }, { "type": "WEB", "url": "https://docs.rs/ink_env/4.2.0/ink_env/fn.invoke_contract_delegate.html" }, { "type": "PACKAGE", "url": "https://github.com/paritytech/ink" } ], "schema_version": "1.4.0", "severity": [ { "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N", "type": "CVSS_V3" } ], "summary": "ink! vulnerable to incorrect decoding of storage value when using `DelegateCall`" }
Sightings
Author | Source | Type | Date |
---|
Nomenclature
- Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or seen somewhere by the user.
- Confirmed: The vulnerability is confirmed from an analyst perspective.
- Exploited: This vulnerability was exploited and seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Patched: This vulnerability was successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not exploited: This vulnerability was not exploited or seen by the user reporting the sighting.
- Not confirmed: The user expresses doubt about the veracity of the vulnerability.
- Not patched: This vulnerability was not successfully patched by the user reporting the sighting.