dbcve.org
VyperApplication · Vyperlang

CVE-2024-32481

MEDIUM · 5.3 CVSS v3.1 Published 2024-04-25
Fix available
A fix is available. Upgrade to after 0.3.10 or later.
See remediation →
62/100
Remediation priority · Elevated
Public exploit Remotely reachable No privileges Zero-click Patch available

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
Vyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum virtual machine. Starting in version 0.3.8 and prior to version 0.4.0b1, when looping over a `range` of the form `range(start, start + N)`, if `start` is negative, the execution will always revert. This issue is caused by an incorrect assertion inserted by the code generation of the range `stmt.parse_For_range()`. The issue arises when `start` is signed, instead of using `sle`, `le` is used and `start` is interpreted as an unsigned integer for the comparison. If it is a negative number, its 255th bit is set to `1` and is hence interpreted as a very large unsigned integer making the assertion always fail. Any contract having a `range(start, start + N)` where `start` is a signed integer with the possibility for `start` to be negative is affected. If a call goes through the loop while supplying a negative `start` the execution will revert. Version 0.4.0b1 fixes the issue.

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

A detailed technical summary for this CVE is being prepared.

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
VyperApplication
Affected:>= 0.3.8, <= 0.3.10= 0.4.0

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
Low
Availability
None

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

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 a release after 0.3.10
Vendor patch github.com →
Recommended fix High confidence

0.4.0b1 or later

  1. 1. Identify all Vyper smart contracts using `range(start, start + N)` where `start` could be a negative signed integer.
  2. 2. Review contracts to determine if they could receive negative values for the `start` parameter.
  3. 3. If affected, upgrade Vyper compiler to version 0.4.0b1 or later from https://github.com/vyperlang/vyper/releases
  4. 4. Recompile all affected smart contracts with the updated compiler.
  5. 5. Redeploy contracts to the Ethereum blockchain if the compiled bytecode changes.
Caveat Upgrading to 0.4.0b1 may introduce other language changes; review the v0.4.0 release notes for breaking changes and test thoroughly before production deployment

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

We can identify the exact fixed release, upgrade, and verify it in staging — typical engagement from $1,600. Get the upgrade done

Scan for this in your stack

Free · runs locally
dbcve dependency scanner

Check whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-32481 — 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-2024-32481 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