GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3 is a medium-severity (CVSS 5.3) CWE-252 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.
ecrecover can return undefined data if signature does not verify
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 GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3.
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.
How urgent is this, really
GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3 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 377,238 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
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
Impact
the ecrecover precompile does not fill the output buffer if the signature does not verify, see https://github.com/ethereum/go-ethereum/blob/b058cf454b3bdc7e770e2b3cec83a0bcb48f55ee/core/vm/contracts.go#L188. however, the ecrecover builtin will still return whatever is at memory location 0.
this means that the if the compiler has been convinced to write to the 0 memory location with specially crafted data (generally, this can happen with a hashmap access or immutable read) just before the ecrecover, a signature check might pass on an invalid signature.
A contract search was performed. Most uses of ecrecover are used for erc2612-style permit implementations, which typically look like:
assert _owner != empty(address)
assert block.timestamp <= _deadline
nonce: uint256 = self.nonces[_owner]
digest: bytes32 = keccak256(
concat(
b"\x19\x01",
self.DOMAIN_SEPARATOR,
keccak256(_abi_encode(PERMIT_TYPEHASH, _owner, _spender, _value, nonce, _deadline))
)
)
assert ecrecover(digest, convert(_v, uint256), convert(_r, uint256), convert(_s, uint256)) == _owner
in this case, the immutable PERMIT_TYPEHASH is loaded into ecrecover's output buffer right before ecrecover(), and so the output of ecrecover() here when the signature is invalid will be the value of PERMIT_TYPEHASH. in this case, since PERMIT_TYPEHASH is not a valid address, it will never compare == to _owner, and so the behaviour is exactly the same as if ecrecover() returned 0 in this case.
in general, a contract could have unexpected behavior (i.e. mistakenly pass this style of signature check) if an immutable representing a real address (ex. OWNER) was read right before the ecrecover operation.
Patches
v0.3.10 (with 019a37ab98ff53f04fecfadf602b6cd5ac748f7f and #3586)
Workarounds
Is there a way for users to fix or remediate the vulnerability without upgrading?
References
Are there any links users can visit to find out more?
Affected Packages
| Ecosystem | Package | Vulnerable range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| 🐍PyPI | vyper | all versions | 0.3.10pip install --upgrade 'vyper==0.3.10' |
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 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 0.3.10 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3 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 GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3 can be triaged on real exposure rather than presence alone.
Tailored to GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3 in your dependencies?
O3 Security finds GHSA-f5x6-7qgp-jhf3 across PyPI dependencies, including transitive ones, and its impact-aware SCA ranks findings by whether your code actually calls the vulnerable path.