dbcve.org
BesuApplication · Linuxfoundation

CVE-2022-36025

CRITICAL · 9.1 CVSS v3.1 Published 2022-09-24
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to 22.7.1 or later.
See remediation →
100/100
Remediation priority · Urgent
Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click

Official description Straight from the sourceThe vendor's or NVD's own wording, published unedited. Authoritative, but often terse — it says what broke, rarely what to do.

NVD · unedited
Besu is a Java-based Ethereum client. In versions newer than 22.1.3 and prior to 22.7.1, Besu is subject to an Incorrect Conversion between Numeric Types. An error in 32 bit signed and unsigned types in the calculation of available gas in the CALL operations (including DELEGATECALL) results in incorrect gas being passed into called contracts and incorrect gas being returned after call execution. Where the amount of gas makes a difference in the success or failure, or if the gas is a negative 64 bit value, the execution will result in a different state root than expected, resulting in a consensus failure in networks with multiple EVM implementations. In networks with a single EVM implementation this can be used to execute with significantly more gas than then transaction requested, possibly exceeding gas limitations. This issue is patched in version 22.7.1. As a workaround, reverting to version 22.1.3 or earlier will prevent incorrect execution.

Technical summary Written by usOur analysis, written from the advisory, the CVSS vector and the affected-version data. It adds context the advisory leaves out, and never invents facts that are not in the source.

dbcve analysis · high confidence

Besu versions 22.1.4 through 22.7.0 contain an incorrect conversion between numeric types in the calculation of available gas for CALL and DELEGATECALL operations. A 32-bit signed/unsigned type error causes incorrect gas to be passed to called contracts and incorrect gas to be returned after execution, leading to consensus failures in multi-EVM networks or allowing excess gas consumption in single-EVM networks.

MitigationUpgrade Besu to version 22.7.1 or later. Alternatively, downgrade to version 22.1.3 or earlier as a workaround.

Verify against the referenced sources before acting — the references below are authoritative for this CVE, this summary is not.

Affected products & versions What the vendor confirmedThe version ranges the vendor confirmed as vulnerable. If your version sits inside a range here, treat yourself as exposed until you have upgraded.

NVD · CPE data
BesuApplication
Affected:>= 22.4.1, < 22.7.1= 22.4.0

CVSS breakdown How the score is builtThe industry scoring standard. It rates how the flaw is reached, what it takes to exploit, and what an attacker gains — the score is derived from those, not the other way round.

From the vector
Attack vector
Network
Complexity
Low
Privileges
None
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
High
Availability
High

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:H

Am I affected? How to checkSteps we derive from the advisory and the affected-version data, so you can decide whether this CVE reaches your setup. They are a guide, not a scan — your own configuration is the authority.

dbcve checks

Work through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.

  1. Identify the installed Besu version
    Run 'besu --version' or check the Besu binary/build information to determine the exact version number
    Affected if The version is 22.1.4 through 22.7.0 inclusive, or exactly 22.4.0
  2. Confirm Besu is running as a node
    Verify the Besu process is active and accepting RPC requests, as the vulnerability affects contract execution gas calculation during CALL and DELEGATECALL operations
    Affected if Besu is running and processing Ethereum transactions that involve CALL or DELEGATECALL operations
  3. Check for consensus-related anomalies (multi-EVM networks)
    If running in a multi-client network, monitor for consensus failures or validation mismatches when CALL or DELEGATECALL opcodes are executed
    Affected if Consensus failures occur after executing contracts that use CALL or DELEGATECALL operations

You are affected if your Besu version is 22.1.4 through 22.7.0 inclusive, or exactly 22.4.0, and you are executing smart contracts that use CALL or DELEGATECALL operations.

Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.

Check your environment

Paste your version and any relevant configuration and it will be compared against the affected criteria above. Do not include secrets or credentials.

AI-assisted, checked against the advisory. Informational, not a guarantee.

Remediation Closing itWhat it takes to close this. Where a vendor fix exists we point at it; where none exists we say so plainly, and can build one. Effort estimates are scoped from the advisory, not from your codebase.

dbcve · scoped
Upgrade available Upgrade to 22.7.1 or later
Fixed in 22.7.1
Interim mitigation

Upgrade Besu to version 22.7.1 or later. Alternatively, downgrade to version 22.1.3 or earlier as a workaround.

Recommended fix High confidence

22.7.1

  1. Stop the Besu node gracefully
  2. Backup any critical configuration and data
  3. Upgrade Besu to version 22.7.1
  4. Verify the installation version matches 22.7.1
  5. Restart the Besu node

Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.

Fix this in Besu Scoped from the published advisory
  • Consultation4.0 h
  • Implementation2.0 h
  • Testing6.0 h
  • Review / QA3.0 h
15.0 hours of engineering $2,600
Get the upgrade done

An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $4,160.

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2022-36025 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.

Get it on GitHub Scan in the browser

References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.

Primary sources

Practitioner notes

Contributed

Peer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2022-36025 in production — separate from our analysis above.

No notes yet

Be the first to add a field note for this CVE — a mitigation you’ve verified, a version caveat, or a link to a working fix. Sign in above to contribute.

What this is

A place for practitioners to share what actually worked: a mitigation you’ve tested, a configuration change, a version- or environment-specific caveat, or a link to a verified patch. The most useful notes rise to the top as peers upvote them, so the signal stays high.

What belongs here
  • Verified mitigations, workarounds, and config changes
  • Version or environment caveats, and links to real fixes
  • No weaponised exploit code, or anything meant to cause harm
  • No spam, self-promotion, credentials, or personal data