Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐍
🐍 PyPI
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

CVE-2023-30629 — vyper

HIGHFix: vyperlang/vyper@851f7a1

CVE-2023-30629 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) CWE-670 vulnerability in vyper. 1 public exploit reference exists, so weaponization risk is real. A fix is available for vyper — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Vyper's raw_call with outsize=0 and revert_on_failure=False returns incorrect success value

Also known asGHSA-w9g2-3w7p-72g9PYSEC-2023-131
Published
Apr 24, 2023
Updated
Aug 12, 2026
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
1 known
Exploitation data as of Sep 22, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

Exploitation Status

No confirmed exploitation observed yet

  • CISA assesses this as automatable — exploitation doesn’t require manual, per-target effort, which raises the odds of mass scanning and opportunistic attacks.
  • CISA’s own triage has not observed active exploitation or public proof-of-concept code for this CVE as of its last assessment.

Exploitation and automatability from CISA’s SSVC triage for CVE-2023-30629.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.9%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk0.00%
Lower risk than most CVEs58th percentile — riskier than 58% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) is a daily probability model maintained by FIRST.org. It estimates the likelihood a CVE will be exploited in production environments within the next 30 days, derived from real-world threat intelligence signals.

How urgent is this, really

CVE-2023-30629 plotted by exploitation likelihood (EPSS) against impact (CVSS). The shaded corner — EPSS 50%+ and CVSS 7.0+ — is where this CVE doesn't sit, though severity or exploitability alone can still warrant action.

Where this sits among everything scored

Of 378,567 CVEs with a current EPSS score, this one falls in the < 10% band (highlighted). Real counts from FIRST.org, not a sample — log-scaled since the landscape is heavily right-skewed.

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected
🐍vyper

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects PyPI packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Background

During the audit of Lido's Gate Seals code statemind team identified a weird behavior of the code that uses raw_call: https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals/blob/051593e74df01a4131c485b4fda52e691cd4b7d8/contracts/GateSeal.vy#L164 .

Construction like this:

success = raw_call(
    sealable,
    _abi_encode(SEAL_DURATION_SECONDS, method_id=method_id("pauseFor(uint256)")),
    revert_on_failure=False
)

was not fully documented: https://docs.vyperlang.org/en/v0.3.7/built-in-functions.html#raw_call .

The documentation says that: if max_outsize=0 it should return nothing and then it says that if revert_on_failure=False it should return a success flag in the tuple of response, but what if max_outsize=0 and revert_on_failure=False.

<img width="715" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22330612/232125364-d2b3bbac-0b4f-40cb-80ff-f55d8eafef44.png">

So the team started researching what exactly happened in that case, after some research we found that the Vyper compiler generates the wrong bytecode in that case, it generates the sequence:

CALL // call
MLOAD // MLOAD is wrong since the CALL result is already stored in the stack

Impact

Example of buggy code:

@external
def returnSome(calling: address, a: uint256) -> bool:
    success: bool = false
    success = raw_call(
        calling,
        _abi_encode(a, method_id=method_id("a(uint256)")),
        revert_on_failure=False
        )

any contract that uses the raw_call with revert_on_failure=False and max_outsize=0 receives the wrong response from raw_call. Depending on the memory garbage, the result can be either True or False.

Patches

Fix by @charles-cooper https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/851f7a1b3aa2a36fd041e3d0ed38f9355a58c8ae

Workarounds

The simple workaround is always to put max_outsize>0. Workaround example https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals/pull/5/files

References

Lido's fix: https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals/pull/5/files

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐍PyPIvyper≥ 0.3.1&&< 0.3.80.3.8pip install --upgrade 'vyper==0.3.8'
Exploits & PoCs
1

Research use only. For defensive security, authorized penetration testing, and academic research only. Never execute exploit code against systems without explicit written authorization.

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for vyper, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.

  2. Fix

    Update vyper to 0.3.8 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2023-30629 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

  3. Workarounds

    If you can't upgrade right away: gate or disable the affected feature, validate untrusted input at the boundary, and avoid passing attacker-controlled data into the vulnerable path. O3's runtime protection blocks exploitation in production as an interim safeguard until the upgrade lands.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2023-30629 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.

Tailored to CVE-2023-30629. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Background During the audit of [Lido's Gate Seals](https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals) code [statemind](https://statemind.io) team identified a weird behavior of the code that uses `raw_call`: https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals/blob/051593e74df01a4131c485b4fda52e691cd4b7d8/contracts/GateSeal.vy#L164 . Construction like this: ```vyper success = raw_call( sealable, _abi_encode(SEAL_DURATION_SECONDS, method_id=method_id("pauseFor(uint256)")), revert_on_failure=False ) ``` was not fully documented: https://docs.vyperlang.org/en/v0.3.7/built-in-functions.html#raw_call
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is CVE-2023-30629 in your dependencies?

O3 Security finds CVE-2023-30629 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.

CVE-2023-30629: vyper (High 7.5) | O3 Security