Tóm tắt nhanh
- CVE-2022-29219 là lỗ hổng mức CAO (CVSS 7.5) ảnh hưởng lodestar (chainsafe), @chainsafe/lodestar.
- Xác suất bị khai thác trong 30 ngày tới (EPSS): 1.3%, cao hơn 71.5% các lỗ hổng khác.
- Cách xử lý: cập nhật lên 0.36.0 hoặc mới hơn.
Mô tả
Impact
Possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted AttesterSlashing or ProposerSlashing being included on-chain.
Since we represent uint64 values as native javascript numbers, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) uint64 values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid AttesterSlashing or ProposerSlashing as invalid, due to rounding errors in large number values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network.
Similarly Lodestar may consider invalid ProposerSlashing as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network.
Patches
https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977
Workarounds
Use BigInt to represent Slot and Epoch values in AttesterSlashing and ProposerSlashing objects. BigInt is too slow to be used in all Slot and Epoch cases, so we will carefully use BigInt just where necessary for consensus.
Mô tả của NVD
Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.
Bạn đang dùng một trong các sản phẩm này? Quét site để biết có đang lộ phiên bản có lỗ hổng không.
Quét site miễn phí