VyperApplication · Vyperlang
CVE-2024-32645
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 · uneditedVyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum virtual machine. In versions 0.3.10 and prior, incorrect values can be logged when `raw_log` builtin is called with memory or storage arguments to be used as topics. A contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production. The `build_IR` function of the `RawLog` class fails to properly unwrap the variables provided as topics. Consequently, incorrect values are logged as topics. As of time of publication, no fixed version is available.
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 · moderate confidenceVyper versions 0.3.10 and prior have a bug in the `raw_log` builtin function where the `build_IR` method of the `RawLog` class fails to properly unwrap memory or storage variables passed as topics, resulting in incorrect values being logged to the Ethereum event log.
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
VyperApplication
< 0.4.0CVSS 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
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 checksWork through these to decide whether this CVE applies to you.
-
Check your Vyper compiler versionRun `vyper --version` or check your build system/dependency lock file for the Vyper versionAffected if Version is 0.3.10 or prior, or less than 0.4.0
-
Identify raw_log usage in your contractsSearch your Vyper source code files for instances of the `raw_log` builtin functionAffected if Any usage of raw_log is found in your contracts
-
Inspect raw_log topic argumentsFor each raw_log call found, examine the arguments passed as topics (the second argument to raw_log)Affected if Memory variables (local variables) or storage variables (contract state variables) are used as topic arguments
-
Review compiled IR outputIf you have access to the compiled IR (intermediate representation), inspect the RawLog build_IR output for any signs of improperly wrapped topic valuesAffected if The compiled output shows unexpected encoding or unwrapping issues with topic values
You are affected if you use Vyper version less than 0.4.0 AND use memory or storage variables as topics in raw_log calls.
Generated from the published advisory. Verify against your own configuration.
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.
From vendor data0.4.0
Avoid using memory or storage variables as topics in `raw_log` calls until a patched version is released; review existing contracts for vulnerable usage patterns.
Fix this in Vyper
Scoped from the published advisory
- Consultation4.0 h
- Implementation8.0 h
- Testing6.0 h
- Review / QA4.0 h
An estimate, not a bill — we confirm scope with you before any work starts. Need it this week? Rush from $6,176.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2024-32645 — or any other known-vulnerable package — straight from your lock files. Free and open source; it runs locally and uploads nothing.
References Go to the primary sourcePrimary sources — vendor advisories, patches and trackers. Where our summary and a reference disagree, the reference wins.
Primary sourcesPractitioner notes
ContributedPeer-ranked notes from engineers who’ve handled CVE-2024-32645 in production — separate from our analysis above.
The advisory tells you what broke. It rarely tells you what actually worked. If you’ve dealt with this one, that detail is what the next engineer is searching for.
- The version that genuinely resolved it — not the one the vendor claimed
- A config change or rule that shut the vector down
- A gotcha in the upgrade path that cost you an afternoon
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.
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.
- 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