CVE-2022-29219 (GCVE-0-2022-29219)

Vulnerability from cvelistv5 – Published: 2022-05-24 14:15 – Updated: 2025-04-23 18:22
VLAI
Title
Integer Overflow in Lodestar
Summary
Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.
Severity
7.5 (High)
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
SSVC
Exploitation: none Automatable: yes Technical Impact: partial
CISA Coordinator · CISA-ADP (v2.0.3)
Decision recorded 2025-04-23 15:54 UTC
CWE
  • CWE-190 - Integer Overflow or Wraparound
Assigner
GitHub_M CNA
References
Impacted products
Vendor Product Version
ChainSafe lodestar Affected: < 0.36.0
Create a notification for this product.
Show details on NVD website
To clipboard 

{
  "containers": {
    "adp": [
      {
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2024-08-03T06:17:54.286Z",
          "orgId": "af854a3a-2127-422b-91ae-364da2661108",
          "shortName": "CVE"
        },
        "references": [
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_CONFIRM",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
          },
          {
            "tags": [
              "x_refsource_MISC",
              "x_transferred"
            ],
            "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
          }
        ],
        "title": "CVE Program Container"
      },
      {
        "metrics": [
          {
            "other": {
              "content": {
                "id": "CVE-2022-29219",
                "options": [
                  {
                    "Exploitation": "none"
                  },
                  {
                    "Automatable": "yes"
                  },
                  {
                    "Technical Impact": "partial"
                  }
                ],
                "role": "CISA Coordinator",
                "timestamp": "2025-04-23T15:54:48.726800Z",
                "version": "2.0.3"
              },
              "type": "ssvc"
            }
          }
        ],
        "providerMetadata": {
          "dateUpdated": "2025-04-23T18:22:36.298Z",
          "orgId": "134c704f-9b21-4f2e-91b3-4a467353bcc0",
          "shortName": "CISA-ADP"
        },
        "title": "CISA ADP Vulnrichment"
      }
    ],
    "cna": {
      "affected": [
        {
          "product": "lodestar",
          "vendor": "ChainSafe",
          "versions": [
            {
              "status": "affected",
              "version": "\u003c 0.36.0"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "descriptions": [
        {
          "lang": "en",
          "value": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus."
        }
      ],
      "metrics": [
        {
          "cvssV3_1": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 7.5,
            "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          }
        }
      ],
      "problemTypes": [
        {
          "descriptions": [
            {
              "cweId": "CWE-190",
              "description": "CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound",
              "lang": "en",
              "type": "CWE"
            }
          ]
        }
      ],
      "providerMetadata": {
        "dateUpdated": "2022-05-24T14:15:14.000Z",
        "orgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
        "shortName": "GitHub_M"
      },
      "references": [
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_CONFIRM"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
        },
        {
          "tags": [
            "x_refsource_MISC"
          ],
          "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
        }
      ],
      "source": {
        "advisory": "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
        "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
      },
      "title": "Integer Overflow in Lodestar",
      "x_legacyV4Record": {
        "CVE_data_meta": {
          "ASSIGNER": "security-advisories@github.com",
          "ID": "CVE-2022-29219",
          "STATE": "PUBLIC",
          "TITLE": "Integer Overflow in Lodestar"
        },
        "affects": {
          "vendor": {
            "vendor_data": [
              {
                "product": {
                  "product_data": [
                    {
                      "product_name": "lodestar",
                      "version": {
                        "version_data": [
                          {
                            "version_value": "\u003c 0.36.0"
                          }
                        ]
                      }
                    }
                  ]
                },
                "vendor_name": "ChainSafe"
              }
            ]
          }
        },
        "data_format": "MITRE",
        "data_type": "CVE",
        "data_version": "4.0",
        "description": {
          "description_data": [
            {
              "lang": "eng",
              "value": "Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus."
            }
          ]
        },
        "impact": {
          "cvss": {
            "attackComplexity": "LOW",
            "attackVector": "NETWORK",
            "availabilityImpact": "NONE",
            "baseScore": 7.5,
            "baseSeverity": "HIGH",
            "confidentialityImpact": "NONE",
            "integrityImpact": "HIGH",
            "privilegesRequired": "NONE",
            "scope": "UNCHANGED",
            "userInteraction": "NONE",
            "vectorString": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N",
            "version": "3.1"
          }
        },
        "problemtype": {
          "problemtype_data": [
            {
              "description": [
                {
                  "lang": "eng",
                  "value": "CWE-190: Integer Overflow or Wraparound"
                }
              ]
            }
          ]
        },
        "references": {
          "reference_data": [
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
              "refsource": "CONFIRM",
              "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
            },
            {
              "name": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0",
              "refsource": "MISC",
              "url": "https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"
            }
          ]
        },
        "source": {
          "advisory": "GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
          "discovery": "UNKNOWN"
        }
      }
    }
  },
  "cveMetadata": {
    "assignerOrgId": "a0819718-46f1-4df5-94e2-005712e83aaa",
    "assignerShortName": "GitHub_M",
    "cveId": "CVE-2022-29219",
    "datePublished": "2022-05-24T14:15:14.000Z",
    "dateReserved": "2022-04-13T00:00:00.000Z",
    "dateUpdated": "2025-04-23T18:22:36.298Z",
    "state": "PUBLISHED"
  },
  "dataType": "CVE_RECORD",
  "dataVersion": "5.1"
}



Log in or create an account to share your comment.




Tags
Taxonomy of the tags.




Drag nodes to arrange them. Double-click a related vulnerability to open it, or a source to visit its link. The Physics button on the left tunes the layout and the simulation; the legend at the bottom left hides or shows nodes by kind and by sighting type.

Forecast uses a logistic model when the trend is rising, or an exponential decay model when the trend is falling. Fitted via linearized least squares.

Sightings

Author Source Type Date Other

Nomenclature

  • Seen: The vulnerability was mentioned, discussed, or observed by the user.
  • Confirmed: The vulnerability has been validated from an analyst's perspective.
  • Published Proof of Concept: A public proof of concept is available for this vulnerability.
  • Exploited: The vulnerability was observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Patched: The vulnerability was observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not exploited: The vulnerability was not observed as exploited by the user who reported the sighting.
  • Not confirmed: The user expressed doubt about the validity of the vulnerability.
  • Not patched: The vulnerability was not observed as successfully patched by the user who reported the sighting.
Vulnerability timeline

Sightings and recorded dates, grouped by day · UTC

JSON

Loading timeline…




    Related by attack behaviour

    Vulnerabilities whose description is nearest to this one in the vector space of the CIRCL/vulnerability-attack-technique-biencoder model. This is a similarity search over the bi-encoder space (plain cosine), not a classification, and it has no measured accuracy.