CVE-2024-22419: concat built-in can corrupt memory in vyper
Noroxi assessment
Priority: Monitor (action score 39/100)
- The sources we track (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, Metasploit, Nuclei, GitHub) show no public exploit code or exploitation in the wild.
- Probability of exploitation in the next 30 days: 0.77% (FIRST EPSS); higher than 56% of all records.
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it. No account or password is required. No user action is required. No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
- According to CISA the attack is automatable: targets can be found by mass scanning.
- Fixed version: vyperlang vyper 0.4.0.
- Severity is disputed: the assigning authority (CNA) scores it 7.3, NVD 9.8.
Low priority for now. Upgrade to vyperlang vyper 0.4.0 or later.
Generated automatically from the record's data: CVSS (NVD and CNA), CISA KEV and SSVC, FIRST EPSS, exploit sources, fixed versions. How we calculate it
Primary sources: NVD · CVE.org · FIRST EPSS
Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum Virtual Machine. The `concat` built-in can write over the bounds of the memory buffer that was allocated for it and thus overwrite existing valid data. The root cause is that the `build_IR` for `concat` doesn't properly adhere to the API of copy functions (for `>=0.3.2` the `copy_bytes` function). A contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production. The buffer overflow can result in the change of semantics of the contract. The overflow is length-dependent and thus it might go unnoticed during contract testing. However, certainly not all usages of concat will result in overwritten valid data as we require it to be in an internal function and close to the return statement where other memory allocations don't occur. This issue has been addressed in 0.4.0.
- Published
- Jan 18, 2024
- Updated
- Jun 17, 2026
- EPSS
- 0.7% · 56th percentile
- CWE
- CWE-120
Report tools
Action score
39
Low priority for now.
- CVSS
- 39 / 40 · 9.8 / 10
- CISA KEV
- 0 / 30 · Not listed
- EPSS
- 0 / 30 · 0.7%
CISA SSVC decision
- Exploitation
- proof of concept
- Automatable
- yes
- Technical impact
- partial
Vulnrichment: CISA's decision-tree inputs.
CNA vs NVD score
- NVD
- 9.8
- CNA · GitHub_M
- 7.3
- 2.5 point gap
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:L/I:L/A:L
The score given by the assigning authority versus NVD’s independent score. A gap means the severity is contested.
Get told when this record changes
- Not in KEV: no record of exploitation in the wild
- No public exploit code on record
- A fix has been released
If any of these changes, we'll tell you in the daily email digest.
Is your version affected? Check itNoroxi analysis
What does it mean in your environment?
The assessment above is generated automatically from the record's data; it doesn't know your environment. Our team verifies on your systems whether this vulnerability is actually exploitable and which mitigation is enough.
We use this product, ask for helpAffected systems
Is your version affected?
Pick the product and type the version you run. It's compared with this record's version ranges in your browser; the version isn't sent anywhere.
| Vendor | Product | CPE |
|---|---|---|
| vyperlang | vyper | cpe:2.3:a:vyperlang:vyper |
Versions reported by the vendor
Affected version ranges reported by the assigning authority (GitHub_M). Independent of NVD's CPE analysis and usually ahead of it.
vyperlang vyper
- < 0.4.0affected
Affected versions
NVD version ranges (for catalog products). Add the product to your stack with a version and matching uses these.
- vyperlang vyperup to 0.3.10 inclusive
Package-level exposure
OSV and GitHub Advisory data: ecosystem, package and range. SBOM matching uses this table.
| Ecosystem | Package | Affected range | Fix |
|---|---|---|---|
| PyPI | vyper | from 0.3.0 · before 0.4.0 | 0.4.0 |
| PyPI | vyper | before 0.4.0b1 | 0.4.0b1 |
Same product
vyperlang: all recordsOther highest-scoring records for the same primary product.
- CVE-2024-24563Vyper array negative index vulnerability39Monitor
- CVE-2024-24561Vyper bounds check on built-in `slice()` function can be overflowed39Monitor
- CVE-2022-24845Integer bounds error in Vyper39Monitor
Published before and after this one in the same product
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-42460Sep 27, 2023 · _abi_decode input not validated in complex expressions in Vyper30Monitor
- ← EarlierCVE-2023-46247Dec 13, 2023 · Vyper has incorrect storage layout for contracts containing large arrays30Monitor
- Later →CVE-2024-24567Jan 30, 2024 · raw_call `value=` kwargs not disabled for static and delegate calls21Monitor
Remediation
Which version to upgrade to
Fix versions compiled from the vendor, package registries and Microsoft. Verify the vendor's note before upgrading.
| Product / package | Fixed version | Source |
|---|---|---|
| vyperlang vyper | 0.4.0 · description | Vendor (CNA) |
| PyPI:vyper | 0.4.0 | Package registry (OSV) |
| PyPI:vyper | 0.4.0b1 | Package registry (OSV) |
Exploit status
No known public exploit
No public exploit has been observed yet. That doesn't mean you're safe, only that the bar is a little higher.
Research context
For pentesters and researchers: attack profile, score disagreement, timeline, patch commits, credits, variant and chain candidates, bug bounty scope. All derived from existing data; no exploit code.
Timeline
From publication to today: proof of concept, Metasploit module, CISA KEV and fix record. Dates are as reported by the sources.
No dated events beyond publication.
Patch and commit links
Commit, PR and diff links among the references. A starting point for patch-diffing and variant hunting; fixes, not exploits.
Not on record for this CVE: EPSS history · researcher credit · variant or chain candidate · public bounty program.
Technical details
Attack conditions
- Anyone who can reach it over the internet can trigger it.
- No account or password is required.
- No user action is required.
- No special conditions are required; it is repeatable.
If successful
- Confidentiality
- high · data can be read
- Integrity
- high · data or configuration can be modified
- Availability
- high · the service can be disrupted
- Attack vector
- Network
- Attack complexity
- Low
- Privileges required
- None
- User interaction
- None
- Scope
- Unchanged
- Confidentiality impact
- High
- Integrity impact
- High
- Availability impact
- High
Weakness class (CWE)
CWE-120 · Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow')CVSS vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:H/I:H/A:H
nvd-primary
Root cause
When data is copied, the source length is not compared with the size of the destination buffer. Excess data overwrites adjacent memory.
The bug in code
The whole CWE-120 classA representative example of this vulnerability class. Not the vendor's source code; it shows the faulty pattern and its fix.
Vulnerable
char buf[256];
memcpy(buf, pkt->data, pkt->len);Fixed
char buf[256];
if (pkt->len > sizeof(buf)) {
return -EINVAL;
}
memcpy(buf, pkt->data, pkt->len);Attack context
MITRE CAPEC attack patterns and ATT&CK techniques for this weakness class (CWE). A starting point for detection rules and threat hunting.
Attack patterns (CAPEC)
- Buffer Overflow via Environment VariablesCAPEC-10likelihood: High · High
- Overflow BuffersCAPEC-100likelihood: High · Very High
- Client-side Injection-induced Buffer OverflowCAPEC-14likelihood: Medium · High
- Filter Failure through Buffer OverflowCAPEC-24likelihood: High · High
- MIME ConversionCAPEC-42likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Binary Resource FileCAPEC-44likelihood: High · Very High
- Buffer Overflow via Symbolic LinksCAPEC-45likelihood: High · High
- Overflow Variables and TagsCAPEC-46likelihood: High · High
ATT&CK techniques
—
Change log (1)
- Fix✗ → ✓
For records you follow, these changes also arrive as notifications. →
References
Vendor advisories and official records. Exploit/PoC links are deliberately left out.