ghsa-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw
Vulnerability from github
Published
2022-07-21 22:33
Modified
2022-08-10 23:52
Severity ?
7.5 (High) - CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
Summary
OpenZeppelin Contracts's ERC165Checker may revert instead of returning false
Details

Impact

ERC165Checker.supportsInterface is designed to always successfully return a boolean, and under no circumstance revert. However, an incorrect assumption about Solidity 0.8's abi.decode allows some cases to revert, given a target contract that doesn't implement EIP-165 as expected, specifically if it returns a value other than 0 or 1.

The contracts that may be affected are those that use ERC165Checker to check for support for an interface and then handle the lack of support in a way other than reverting.

Patches

The issue was patched in 4.7.1.

References

https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/3552

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, or need assistance deploying the fix, email us at security@openzeppelin.com.

Show details on source website

To clipboard 

{
  "affected": [
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@openzeppelin/contracts"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "4.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.7.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    },
    {
      "package": {
        "ecosystem": "npm",
        "name": "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable"
      },
      "ranges": [
        {
          "events": [
            {
              "introduced": "4.0.0"
            },
            {
              "fixed": "4.7.1"
            }
          ],
          "type": "ECOSYSTEM"
        }
      ]
    }
  ],
  "aliases": [
    "CVE-2022-31170"
  ],
  "database_specific": {
    "cwe_ids": [
      "CWE-20",
      "CWE-252"
    ],
    "github_reviewed": true,
    "github_reviewed_at": "2022-07-21T22:33:01Z",
    "nvd_published_at": "2022-07-22T04:15:00Z",
    "severity": "HIGH"
  },
  "details": "### Impact\n\n`ERC165Checker.supportsInterface` is designed to always successfully return a boolean, and under no circumstance revert. However, an incorrect assumption about Solidity 0.8\u0027s `abi.decode` allows some cases to revert, given a target contract that doesn\u0027t implement EIP-165 as expected, specifically if it returns a value other than 0 or 1.\n\nThe contracts that may be affected are those that use `ERC165Checker` to check for support for an interface and then handle the lack of support in a way other than reverting.\n\n### Patches\n\nThe issue was patched in 4.7.1.\n\n### References\n\nhttps://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/3552\n\n### For more information\n\nIf you have any questions or comments about this advisory, or need assistance deploying the fix, email us at [security@openzeppelin.com](mailto:security@openzeppelin.com).\n",
  "id": "GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw",
  "modified": "2022-08-10T23:52:57Z",
  "published": "2022-07-21T22:33:01Z",
  "references": [
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/security/advisories/GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw"
    },
    {
      "type": "ADVISORY",
      "url": "https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-31170"
    },
    {
      "type": "WEB",
      "url": "https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/3552"
    },
    {
      "type": "PACKAGE",
      "url": "https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts"
    }
  ],
  "schema_version": "1.4.0",
  "severity": [
    {
      "score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
      "type": "CVSS_V3"
    }
  ],
  "summary": "OpenZeppelin Contracts\u0027s ERC165Checker may revert instead of returning false"
}


Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




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.