Your RSA-2048 keys break in 2030. Find every one of them before attackers do.
🐍 PyPI

GHSA-w9g2-3w7p-72g9

HIGH

Incorrect success value returned in vyper

Also known asCVE-2023-30629PYSEC-2023-131
Published
Apr 24, 2023
Updated
Nov 19, 2024
Affected
1 pkg
Patched
1 / 1
Exploits
1 known

EPSS Exploitation Probability

via FIRST.org ↗
0.9%probability of exploitation in next 30 days
Lower Risk54th percentile+0.55%
0.00%0.46%0.92%1.38%0.2%0.9%Dec 25Apr 26Jun 26

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
🐍vyper

Real-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

Background

During the audit of Lido's Gate Seals code statemind team identified a weird behavior of the code that uses raw_call: https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals/blob/051593e74df01a4131c485b4fda52e691cd4b7d8/contracts/GateSeal.vy#L164 .

Construction like this:

success = raw_call(
    sealable,
    _abi_encode(SEAL_DURATION_SECONDS, method_id=method_id("pauseFor(uint256)")),
    revert_on_failure=False
)

was not fully documented: https://docs.vyperlang.org/en/v0.3.7/built-in-functions.html#raw_call .

The documentation says that: if max_outsize=0 it should return nothing and then it says that if revert_on_failure=False it should return a success flag in the tuple of response, but what if max_outsize=0 and revert_on_failure=False.

<img width="715" alt="image" src="https://user-images.githubusercontent.com/22330612/232125364-d2b3bbac-0b4f-40cb-80ff-f55d8eafef44.png">

So the team started researching what exactly happened in that case, after some research we found that the Vyper compiler generates the wrong bytecode in that case, it generates the sequence:

CALL // call
MLOAD // MLOAD is wrong since the CALL result is already stored in the stack

Impact

Example of buggy code:

@external
def returnSome(calling: address, a: uint256) -> bool:
    success: bool = false
    success = raw_call(
        calling,
        _abi_encode(a, method_id=method_id("a(uint256)")),
        revert_on_failure=False
        )

any contract that uses the raw_call with revert_on_failure=False and max_outsize=0 receives the wrong response from raw_call. Depending on the memory garbage, the result can be either True or False.

Patches

Fix by @charles-cooper https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/commit/851f7a1b3aa2a36fd041e3d0ed38f9355a58c8ae

Workarounds

The simple workaround is always to put max_outsize>0. Workaround example https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals/pull/5/files

References

Lido's fix: https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals/pull/5/files

Affected Packages

1 total 1 fixed
EcosystemPackageVulnerable rangeFix
🐍PyPIvyper0.3.1&&< 0.3.80.3.8
Exploits & PoCs
1

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 dependency
  1. Detect

    Scan your dependency tree (package-lock.json, pnpm-lock.yaml, requirements.txt, go.sum, etc.) for vyper. 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.

  2. Fix

    Update vyper to 0.3.8 or later, then make sure no transitive (indirect) dependency still pins the vulnerable range — O3 confirms GHSA-w9g2-3w7p-72g9 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.

  4. How O3 protects you

    O3 pinpoints whether GHSA-w9g2-3w7p-72g9 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-w9g2-3w7p-72g9. Runtime protection reduces exposure until a permanent patch is applied and verified — it complements patching, it doesn't replace it.

Frequently Asked Questions

### Background During the audit of [Lido's Gate Seals](https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals) code [statemind](https://statemind.io) team identified a weird behavior of the code that uses `raw_call`: https://github.com/lidofinance/gate-seals/blob/051593e74df01a4131c485b4fda52e691cd4b7d8/contracts/GateSeal.vy#L164 . Construction like this: ```vyper success = raw_call( sealable, _abi_encode(SEAL_DURATION_SECONDS, method_id=method_id("pauseFor(uint256)")), revert_on_failure=False ) ``` was not fully documented: https://docs.vyperlang.org/en/v0.3.7/built-in-functions.html#raw_call
O3 Security · Impact-Aware SCA

Is GHSA-w9g2-3w7p-72g9 in your dependencies?

O3 detects GHSA-w9g2-3w7p-72g9 across PyPI dependencies and uses function-level reachability to confirm whether the vulnerable code path is actually reachable — not just present. No false positives.