NIST deprecates RSA-2048 from 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
📦
📦 npm
Not in CISA KEV
HIGH severity

AttesterSlashing number overflowGHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9

HIGHFix: ChainSafe/lodestar#3977

GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9 is a high-severity (CVSS 7.5) CWE-190 vulnerability in @chainsafe/lodestar. A fix is available for @chainsafe/lodestar — see the affected versions and patch details below.

Also known asCVE-2022-29219
Published
Updated
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
None indexed
Exploitation data as of Oct 24, 2026 · OSV.dev, NVD, FIRST.org (EPSS)

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
1.3%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk+0.02%
Lower risk than most CVEs71th percentile — riskier than 71% of all scored CVEsHighest risk
0.00%0.61%1.23%1.84%0.4%1.3%Apr 26Aug 26Oct 26

Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days, from FIRST.org EPSS.

How urgent is this, really

Where this sits among everything scored

Real-World Exposure

1 pkg affected

How broadly this vulnerability is actually deployed: weekly install volume shows current usage, and reverse-dependency count shows how many other packages break if it stays unpatched.

1other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream
@chainsafe/lodestarnpm
5Kdownloads / week

Description

Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted AttesterSlashing or ProposerSlashing being included on-chain. Because the developers represent uint64 values as native javascript numbers, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) uint64 values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_AttesterSlashing or ProposerSlashing as invalid, due to rounding errors in large number values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid ProposerSlashing as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use BigInt to represent Slot and Epoch values in AttesterSlashing and ProposerSlashing objects. BigInt is too slow to be used in all Slot and Epoch cases, so one may carefully use BigInt just where necessary for consensus.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
📦npm@chainsafe/lodestarall versions0.36.0npm install @chainsafe/lodestar@0.36.0

Affected Products

1 product · 1 configurations
Application
lodestarchainsafe
< 0.36.0
range

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency
  1. Detect

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

  2. Fix

    Update @chainsafe/lodestar to 0.36.0 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9 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.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact Possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Since we represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view _valid_ `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as _invalid_, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly Lodestar may consider _invalid_ `ProposerSlash
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9 in your dependencies?

Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.

AttesterSlashing number overflow (High 7.5)