VyperApplication · Vyperlang
CVE-2025-27104
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 EVM. Multiple evaluation of a single expression is possible in the iterator target of a for loop. While the iterator expression cannot produce multiple writes, it can consume side effects produced in the loop body (e.g. read a storage variable updated in the loop body) and thus lead to unexpected program behavior. Specifically, reads in iterators which contain an ifexp (e.g. `for s: uint256 in ([read(), read()] if True else [])`) may interleave reads with writes in the loop body. Vyper for loops allow two kinds of iterator targets, namely the `range()` builtin and an iterable type, like SArray and DArray. During codegen, iterable lists are required to not produce any side-effects (in the following code, `range_scope` forces `iter_list` to be parsed in a constant context, which is checked against `is_constant`). However, this does not prevent the iterator from consuming side effects provided by the body of the loop. For SArrays on the other hand, `iter_list` is instantiated in the body of a `repeat` ir, so it can be evaluated several times. This issue is being addressed and is expected to be available in version 0.4.1. Users are advised to upgrade as soon as the patched release is available. There are no known workarounds for this vulnerability.
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 analysisA 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
< 0.4.1CVSS 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
- None
- Availability
- High
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H
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 · scoped0.4.1
0.4.1
- Upgrade Vyper to version 0.4.1 or later
- Verify that smart contracts using for loops with iterable types (SArray, DArray) containing ifexp in the iterator still compile correctly
- Rebuild and redeploy any affected smart contracts to the EVM
Generated from the published advisory — verify against the referenced sources before acting.
Scan for this in your stack
Free · runs locallyCheck whether your project pulls in CVE-2025-27104 — 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-2025-27104 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