Summary
Arrays can be keyed by a signed integer, while they are defined for unsigned integers only. The typechecker doesn't throw when spotting the usage of an int as an index for an array. Typically, negative integers are filtered out at runtime by the bounds checker, but small enough (i.e. large in magnitude, ex. -2**255 + 5) quantities combined with large enough arrays (at least 2**255 in length) can pass the bounds checker, resulting in unexpected behavior.
A contract search was performed, and no production contracts were found to be impacted.
Details
The typechecker allows the usage of signed integers to be used as indexes to arrays. The vulnerability is present in different forms in all versions. Here is an example from 0.3.10:
|
def validate_index_type(self, node): |
|
# TODO break this cycle |
|
from vyper.semantics.analysis.utils import validate_expected_type |
|
|
|
if isinstance(node, vy_ast.Int): |
|
if node.value < 0: |
|
raise ArrayIndexException("Vyper does not support negative indexing", node) |
|
if node.value >= self.length: |
|
raise ArrayIndexException("Index out of range", node) |
|
|
|
validate_expected_type(node, IntegerT.any()) |
As can be seen, the validation is performed against IntegerT.any().
PoC
If the array is sufficiently large, it can be indexed with a negative value:
arr: public(uint256[MAX_UINT256])
@external
def set(idx: int256, num: uint256):
self.arr[idx] = numFor signed integers, the 2's complement representation is used. Because the array was declared very large, the bounds checking will pass (negative values will simply be represented as very large numbers):
|
is_darray = isinstance(parent.typ, DArrayT) |
|
bound = get_dyn_array_count(parent) if is_darray else parent.typ.count |
|
# uclamplt works, even for signed ints. since two's-complement |
|
# is used, if the index is negative, (unsigned) LT will interpret |
|
# it as a very large number, larger than any practical value for |
|
# an array index, and the clamp will throw an error. |
|
# NOTE: there are optimization rules for this when ix or bound is literal |
|
ix = clamp("lt", ix, bound) |
Patches
Patched in #3817.
Impact
There are two potential vulnerability classes: unpredictable behavior and accessing inaccessible elements.
-
If it is possible to index an array with a negative integer without reverting, this is most likely not anticipated by the developer and such accesses can cause unpredictable behavior for the contract.
-
If a contract has an invariant in the form assert index < x where both index and x are signed integers, the developer might suppose that no elements on indexes y | y >= x are accessible. However, by using negative indexes this can be bypassed.
The contract search found no production contracts impacted by these two classes of issues.
cyberthirst Coordinator
iFrostizz Reporter
Summary
Arrays can be keyed by a signed integer, while they are defined for unsigned integers only. The typechecker doesn't throw when spotting the usage of an
intas an index for an array. Typically, negative integers are filtered out at runtime by the bounds checker, but small enough (i.e. large in magnitude, ex.-2**255 + 5) quantities combined with large enough arrays (at least2**255in length) can pass the bounds checker, resulting in unexpected behavior.A contract search was performed, and no production contracts were found to be impacted.
Details
The typechecker allows the usage of signed integers to be used as indexes to arrays. The vulnerability is present in different forms in all versions. Here is an example from
0.3.10:vyper/vyper/semantics/types/subscriptable.py
Lines 127 to 137 in c150fc4
As can be seen, the validation is performed against
IntegerT.any().PoC
If the array is sufficiently large, it can be indexed with a negative value:
For signed integers, the 2's complement representation is used. Because the array was declared very large, the bounds checking will pass (negative values will simply be represented as very large numbers):
vyper/vyper/codegen/core.py
Lines 534 to 541 in a1fd228
Patches
Patched in #3817.
Impact
There are two potential vulnerability classes: unpredictable behavior and accessing inaccessible elements.
If it is possible to index an array with a negative integer without reverting, this is most likely not anticipated by the developer and such accesses can cause unpredictable behavior for the contract.
If a contract has an invariant in the form
assert index < xwhere bothindexandxare signed integers, the developer might suppose that no elements on indexesy | y >= xare accessible. However, by using negative indexes this can be bypassed.The contract search found no production contracts impacted by these two classes of issues.