How severe is GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp?

GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp has a CVSS score of 6.5/10, rated MEDIUM. Review your exposure and patch according to your risk tolerance.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp?

GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp affects the following packages: fc-rpc (crates.io). Ecosystems affected: crates.io.

How do I fix GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp?

No patched version of fc-rpc has shipped for GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.

How do I detect GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp in my crates.io dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for fc-rpc. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.

How do I mitigate GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp if there is no patch (or I can't update yet)?

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 does O3 Security protect against GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Is GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp 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-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp?

GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.9%, placing it in the 57th 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-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp?

GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp 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-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp was published on August 18, 2022 and was last updated on October 24, 2024. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

🦀 crates.io

GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp

MEDIUM

Incorrect parsing of EVM reversion exit reason in RPC

Also known asCVE-2022-36008

Published

Aug 18, 2022

Updated

Oct 24, 2024

Affected

1 pkg

Patched

None yet

Exploits

None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.9%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk57th percentile+0.49%

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.

Blast Radius

1 pkg affected

🦀fc-rpc

Real-time download stats are indexed for npm and PyPI packages. This vulnerability affects crates.io packages — download data is not available via public APIs for these ecosystems.

Description

Impact

A low severity security issue was discovered affecting parsing of the RPC result of the exit reason in case of EVM reversion. In release build, this would cause the exit reason being incorrectly parsed and returned by RPC. In debug build, this would cause an overflow panic.

No action is needed unless you have a bridge node that needs to distinguish different reversion exit reasons and you used RPC for this.

Patches

The issue is patched in https://github.com/paritytech/frontier/pull/820

Workarounds

None.

References

PR https://github.com/paritytech/frontier/pull/820

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory:

Email Wei Tang

Affected Packages

1 total

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
🦀crates.io	`fc-rpc`	all versions	No fix

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for fc-rpc. O3's reachability analysis confirms whether the vulnerable code path is actually invoked in your application, so you act on real exposure instead of every transitive match.
Remediation status
No patched version of fc-rpc has shipped for GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp yet. Where your build allows, override or pin the dependency away from the vulnerable range, and apply any maintainer-recommended mitigation.
Mitigate without a patch
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 pinpoints whether GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp is reachable in your code and exactly where to fix it, then blocks exploitation in production at runtime until the patched version is deployed.

Tailored to GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact A low severity security issue was discovered affecting parsing of the RPC result of the exit reason in case of EVM reversion. In release build, this would cause the exit reason being incorrectly parsed and returned by RPC. In debug build, this would cause an overflow panic. No action is needed unless you have a bridge node that needs to distinguish different reversion exit reasons and you used RPC for this. ### Patches The issue is patched in https://github.com/paritytech/frontier/pull/820 ### Workarounds None. ### References PR https://github.com/paritytech/frontier/pull/82

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-mjvm-mhgc-q4gp across crates.io dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.

Scan my dependencies How O3 SCA works