{"id":"CVE-2024-24567","aliases":["GHSA-x2c2-q32w-4w6m","PYSEC-2024-151"],"url":"https://o3.security/vulnerability/CVE-2024-24567","summary":"raw_call `value=` kwargs not disabled for static and delegate calls","details":"### Summary\nVyper 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.\n\nA contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production.\n\n### Details\nThe IR for `raw_call` is built in the `RawCall` class:\nhttps://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L1100\n\nHowever, 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:\n```python\nraw_call(self, call_data2, max_outsize=255, is_delegate_call=True, value=msg.value/2)\n```\n\n### Impact\nIf 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.\n\nHere is an example of an potentially problematic implementation of multicall utilizing the `raw_call` built-in:\n```python\nvalue_accumulator: uint256 = empty(uint256)\n    results: DynArray[Result, max_value(uint8)] = []\n    return_data: Bytes[max_value(uint8)] = b\"\"\n    success: bool = empty(bool)\n    for batch in data:\n        msg_value: uint256 = batch.value\n        value_accumulator = unsafe_add(value_accumulator, msg_value)\n        if (batch.allow_failure == False):\n            return_data = raw_call(self, batch.call_data, max_outsize=255, value=msg_value, is_delegate_call=True)\n            success = True\n            results.append(Result({success: success, return_data: return_data}))\n        else:\n            success, return_data = \\\n                raw_call(self, batch.call_data, max_outsize=255, value=msg_value, is_delegate_call=True, revert_on_failure=False)\n            results.append(Result({success: success, return_data: return_data}))\n    assert msg.value == value_accumulator, \"Multicall: value mismatch\"\n    return results\n```\n\n### Patches\nFixed in https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3755\n### Workarounds\n_Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?_\n\n### References\n_Are there any links users can visit to find out more?_\n","published":"2024-01-30T20:17:53.955Z","modified":"2026-08-12T03:51:11.426000914Z","cvss":{"score":4.8,"severity":"MEDIUM","vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:L"},"epss":null,"cisaKev":null,"exploitsKnown":2,"affectedPackages":[{"ecosystem":"PyPI","name":"vyper","fixedVersion":"0.4.0"}],"fix":{"url":"https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3755","label":"vyperlang/vyper#3755"},"references":[{"type":"WEB","url":"https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/blob/9136169468f317a53b4e7448389aa315f90b95ba/vyper/builtins/functions.py#L1100"},{"type":"ADVISORY","url":"https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2024/24xxx/CVE-2024-24567.json"},{"type":"ADVISORY","url":"https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/security/advisories/GHSA-x2c2-q32w-4w6m"},{"type":"ADVISORY","url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2024-24567"},{"type":"WEB","url":"https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/3755"},{"type":"WEB","url":"https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/a2df08888c318713742c57f71465f32a1c27ed72"},{"type":"WEB","url":"https://github.com/pypa/advisory-database/tree/main/vulns/vyper/PYSEC-2024-151.yaml"},{"type":"PACKAGE","url":"https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper"}],"provenance":{"sources":["OSV.dev","FIRST.org (EPSS)"],"lastVerified":"2026-08-12T03:51:11.426000914Z"}}