Rs Soroban SdkApplication · Stellar
CVE-2026-24889
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 · uneditedsoroban-sdk is a Rust SDK for Soroban contracts. Arithmetic overflow can be triggered in the `Bytes::slice`, `Vec::slice`, and `Prng::gen_range` (for `u64`) methods in the `soroban-sdk` in versions up to and including `25.0.1`, `23.5.1`, and `25.0.2`. Contracts that pass user-controlled or computed range bounds to `Bytes::slice`, `Vec::slice`, or `Prng::gen_range` may silently operate on incorrect data ranges or generate random numbers from an unintended range, potentially resulting in corrupted contract state. Note that the best practice when using the `soroban-sdk` and building Soroban contracts is to always enable `overflow-checks = true`. The `stellar contract init` tool that prepares the boiler plate for a Soroban contract, as well as all examples and docs, encourage the use of configuring `overflow-checks = true` on `release` profiles so that these arithmetic operations fail rather than silently wrap. Contracts are only impacted if they use `overflow-checks = false` either explicitly or implicitly. It is anticipated the majority of contracts could not be impacted because the best practice encouraged by tooling is to enable `overflow-checks`. The fix available in `25.0.1`, `23.5.1`, and `25.0.2` replaces bare arithmetic with `checked_add` / `checked_sub`, ensuring overflow traps regardless of the `overflow-checks` profile setting. As a workaround, contract workspaces can be configured with a profile available in the GitHub Securtity Advisory to enable overflow checks on the arithmetic operations. This is the best practice when developing Soroban contracts, and the default if using the contract boilerplate generated using `stellar contract init`. Alternatively, contracts can validate range bounds before passing them to `slice` or `gen_range` to ensure the conversions cannot overflow.
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 analysisAn arithmetic operation produces a value too large for its type and wraps around to an unexpected — often tiny or negative — number. That miscalculated value then drives a memory allocation or a bounds check, opening the door to corruption. The fix is checked arithmetic and validating sizes before they're used.
General guidance for the integer overflow class — the official description and references above are authoritative for this specific CVE. Want a bespoke review and a reviewed fix? Ask our team →
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
Rs Soroban SdkApplication
< 22.0.9>= 23.0.0, < 23.5.1>= 25.0.0, < 25.0.2CVSS 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 · scoped22.0.923.5.125.0.2
rs-soroban-sdk: 22.0.9 (for 22.x line), 23.5.1 (for 23.x line), or 25.0.2 (for 25.x line)
- 1. Identify the current rs-soroban-sdk version in your project by checking Cargo.toml or Cargo.lock
- 2. If using version 22.x: upgrade to version 22.0.9 or later
- 3. If using version 23.x: upgrade to version 23.5.1 or later
- 4. If using version 25.x: upgrade to version 25.0.2 or later
- 5. Run `cargo update` to fetch the new dependencies
- 6. Rebuild and test your contract to ensure functionality is intact
- 7. As a best practice, verify that `overflow-checks = true` is set in your release profile in Cargo.toml (this is encouraged by stellar contract init tooling)
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-2026-24889 — 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-2026-24889 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