How severe is GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw?

No CVSS score has been assigned to GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw yet. Review the advisory details and affected package list to assess your exposure.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw?

GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw affects the following packages: @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts (npm). Ecosystems affected: npm.

How do I fix GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw?

Update @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts to 0.3.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw in my npm dependencies?

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

How do I mitigate GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

Constrain what reaches the vulnerable code: limit the size and shape of untrusted input, isolate the affected component in a sandboxed or least-privileged process, and enable the platform's memory-safety mitigations (ASLR, stack protector, hardened allocator) so an out-of-bounds access is more likely to fail closed than to be exploitable.

Is GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw yet. This does not mean the vulnerability cannot be exploited — absence of public exploits does not imply safety. Apply the recommended fix and use O3 Security to monitor your exposure.

What is the EPSS score for GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw?

GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.5%, placing it in the 42th percentile of all CVEs. EPSS is maintained by FIRST.org and estimates the probability that a vulnerability will be exploited in the wild within the next 30 days. This score indicates relatively lower exploitation probability, though the CVSS severity should still guide your patching priority.

What type of vulnerability is GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw?

GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw is classified as CWE-190 (CWE-190). This weakness type describe the underlying flaw category, which helps determine the potential impact and the right class of mitigation.

When was GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw was published on January 5, 2026 and was last updated on August 13, 2026. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

📦 npm

Not in CISA KEV

GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw — @openzeppelin/confidentia…

GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw is a CWE-190 vulnerability in @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts. A fix is available for @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts — see the affected versions and patch details below.

ERC7984ERC20Wrapper: once a wrapper is filled, subsequent wrap requests do not revert and result in loss of funds.

Also known asCVE-2026-73645

Published

Jan 5, 2026

Updated

Aug 13, 2026

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

1 / 1

Exploits

None indexed

Exploitation data as of Sep 27, 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 GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw.

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.5%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk0.00%

Lower risk than most CVEs42th percentile — riskier than 42% of all scored CVEsHighest risk

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

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.

4other npm packages depend on this — each one inherits the vulnerability until it's patched upstream

@openzeppelin/confidential-contractsnpm

966downloads / week

Description

Impact

The ERC7984 contract tracks total supply using a confidential euint64 value. If a call to the internal _mint function would result in the total supply overflowing, the call fails silently. The wrap and onTransferReceived functions in ERC7984ERC20Wrapper assume that _mint won't fail silently and do not check the return value. If the mint function fails silently, users do not receive the confidential wrapped token but still send the underlying token, resulting in a loss of funds.

By default (without overriding rate(), the wrapper fills up after wrapping ~18.4 trillion tokens. There are very few tokens of value with sufficient total supply to result in the filling of the wrapper. That said, we recommend upgrading to 0.3.1 to remove this issue.

Patches

This issue has been patched in the 0.3.1 release.

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
📦npm	`@openzeppelin/confidential-contracts`	all versions	0.3.1`npm install @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts@0.3.1`

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts, including transitive dependencies — a direct dependency you never call can still pull in a vulnerable version.
Fix
Update @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts to 0.3.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw is resolved across your whole dependency graph.
Workarounds
Constrain what reaches the vulnerable code: limit the size and shape of untrusted input, isolate the affected component in a sandboxed or least-privileged process, and enable the platform's memory-safety mitigations (ASLR, stack protector, hardened allocator) so an out-of-bounds access is more likely to fail closed than to be exploitable.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact The `ERC7984` contract tracks total supply using a confidential `euint64` value. If a call to the internal `_mint` function would result in the total supply overflowing, the call fails silently. The `wrap` and `onTransferReceived` functions in `ERC7984ERC20Wrapper` assume that `_mint` won't fail silently and do not check the return value. If the mint function fails silently, users do not receive the confidential wrapped token but still send the underlying token, resulting in a loss of funds. By default (without overriding `rate()`, the wrapper fills up after wrapping ~18.4 trillion

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw in your dependencies?

Find it across npm, including transitive dependencies.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works