CVE-2025-27104 — vyper
Fix: vyperlang/vyper#4488CVE-2025-27104 is a CWE-662 vulnerability in vyper. A fix is available for vyper — see the affected versions and patch details below.
double eval in For List Iter in Vyper
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-2025-27104.
EPSS Exploitation Probability
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.
Real-World Exposure
vyperReal-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
Multiple evaluation of a single expression is possible in the iterator target of a for loop. While the iterator expression cannot produce multiple writes, it can consume side effects produced in the loop body (e.g. read a storage variable updated in the loop body) and thus lead to unexpected program behavior. Specifically, reads in iterators which contain an ifexp (e.g. for s: uint256 in ([read(), read()] if True else [])) may interleave reads with writes in the loop body.
The fix is tracked in https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/pull/4488.
Vulnerability Details
Vyper for loops allow two kinds of iterator targets, namely the range() builtin and an iterable type, like SArray and DArray.
During codegen, iterable lists are required to not produce any side-effects (in the following code, range_scope forces iter_list to be parsed in a constant context, which is checked against is_constant).
def _parse_For_list(self):
with self.context.range_scope():
iter_list = Expr(self.stmt.iter, self.context).ir_node
...
def range_scope(self):
prev_value = self.in_range_expr
self.in_range_expr = True
yield
self.in_range_expr = prev_value
def is_constant(self):
return self.constancy is Constancy.Constant or self.in_range_expr
However, this does not prevent the iterator from consuming side effects provided by the body of the loop. For dynamic arrays, the compiler simply panics:
x: DynArray[uint256, 3]
@external
def test():
for i: uint256 in (self.usesideeffect() if True else self.usesideeffect()):
pass
@view
def usesideeffect() -> DynArray[uint256, 3]:
return self.x
For SArrays on the other hand, iter_list is instantiated in the body of a repeat ir, so it can be evaluated several times.
Here are three illustrating examples. In the first example, the following test case pre-evaluates the iter list and stores the result to a temporary list in memory. So the list is only evaluated once, before entry into the loop body, and the log output will be 0, 0, 0.
event I:
i: uint256
x: uint256
@deploy
def __init__():
self.x = 0
@external
def test():
for i: uint256 in [self.usesideeffect(), self.usesideeffect(), self.usesideeffect()]:
self.x += 1
log I(i)
@view
def usesideeffect() -> uint256:
return self.x
However, in the next two examples, because the iterator target is not a list literal, it will be evaluated in the loop body. In the second example, iter_list is an ifexp, thus it will be evaluated lazily in the loop body. The log output will be 0, 1, 2 due to consumption of side effects.
event I:
i: uint256
x: uint256
@deploy
def __init__():
self.x = 0
@external
def test():
for i: uint256 in ([self.usesideeffect(), self.usesideeffect(), self.usesideeffect()] if True else self.otherclause()):
self.x += 1
log I(i)
@view
def usesideeffect() -> uint256:
return self.x
@view
def otherclause() -> uint256[3]:
return [0, 0, 0]
In the third example, iter_list is also an ifexp, thus it will only be evaluated in the loop body. The log output will be 0, 1, 2 due to consumption of side effects.
event I:
i: uint256
x: uint256[3]
@deploy
def __init__():
self.x = [0, 0, 0]
@external
def test():
for i: uint256 in (self.usesideeffect() if True else self.otherclause()):
self.x[0] += 1
self.x[1] += 1
self.x[2] += 1
log I(i)
@view
def usesideeffect() -> uint256[3]:
return self.x
@view
def otherclause() -> uint256[3]:
return [0, 0, 0]
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | vyper | all versions | 0.4.1pip install --upgrade 'vyper==0.4.1' |
Detection & mitigation playbook
Open-source dependencyDetect
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.
Fix
Update vyper to 0.4.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms CVE-2025-27104 is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
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.
How O3 protects you
O3 Security's impact-aware SCA analyses which vulnerable code paths your application actually calls, so a match like CVE-2025-27104 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to CVE-2025-27104. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is CVE-2025-27104 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds CVE-2025-27104 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.