How severe is GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw?

GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw has a CVSS score of 7.5/10, rated HIGH. Immediate patching is strongly recommended.

Which packages are affected by GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw?

GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw affects the following packages: @openzeppelin/contracts (npm), @openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable (npm). Ecosystems affected: npm.

How do I fix GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw?

Update @openzeppelin/contracts to 4.7.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw is resolved across your whole dependency graph.

How do I detect GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw in my npm dependencies?

Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @openzeppelin/contracts. 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-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw 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-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw?

O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw 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-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw actively exploited in the wild?

No public exploit code has been indexed for GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw 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-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw?

GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw has an EPSS (Exploit Prediction Scoring System) score of 0.6%, placing it in the 45th 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.

When was GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw published, and has it been updated?

GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw was published on July 21, 2022 and was last updated on November 8, 2023. Advisory data evolves as severity scores, affected ranges, and exploit intelligence are revised — always check the latest version of the advisory before acting.

📦 npm

GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw

HIGH

OpenZeppelin Contracts's ERC165Checker may revert instead of returning false

Also known asCVE-2022-31170

Published

Jul 21, 2022

Updated

Nov 8, 2023

Affected

2 pkgs

Patched

2 / 2

Exploits

None indexed

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗

0.6%probability of exploitation in next 30 days

Lower Risk45th percentile+0.25%

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

2 pkgs affected

Weekly download volume for affected packages — a proxy for how broadly this vulnerability is deployed.

@openzeppelin/contractsnpm

1.0Mdownloads / week

@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeablenpm

264Kdownloads / week

Description

Impact

ERC165Checker.supportsInterface is designed to always successfully return a boolean, and under no circumstance revert. However, an incorrect assumption about Solidity 0.8's abi.decode allows some cases to revert, given a target contract that doesn't implement EIP-165 as expected, specifically if it returns a value other than 0 or 1.

The contracts that may be affected are those that use ERC165Checker to check for support for an interface and then handle the lack of support in a way other than reverting.

Patches

The issue was patched in 4.7.1.

References

https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/3552

For more information

If you have any questions or comments about this advisory, or need assistance deploying the fix, email us at [email protected].

Affected Packages

2 total 2 fixed

Ecosystem	Package	Vulnerable range	Fix
📦npm	`@openzeppelin/contracts`	≥ 4.0.0&&< 4.7.1	4.7.1
📦npm	`@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable`	≥ 4.0.0&&< 4.7.1	4.7.1

Detection & mitigation playbook

Open-source dependency

Detect
Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for @openzeppelin/contracts. 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.
Fix
Update @openzeppelin/contracts to 4.7.1 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw 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 pinpoints whether GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw 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-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Impact `ERC165Checker.supportsInterface` is designed to always successfully return a boolean, and under no circumstance revert. However, an incorrect assumption about Solidity 0.8's `abi.decode` allows some cases to revert, given a target contract that doesn't implement EIP-165 as expected, specifically if it returns a value other than 0 or 1. The contracts that may be affected are those that use `ERC165Checker` to check for support for an interface and then handle the lack of support in a way other than reverting. ### Patches The issue was patched in 4.7.1. ### References https://gi

O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-qh9x-gcfh-pcrw across npm 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