Summary
The bounds check for slices does not account for the ability for start + length
to overflow when the values aren't literals.
If a slice()
function uses a non-literal argument for the start
or length
variable, this creates the ability for an attacker to overflow the bounds check.
This issue can be used to do OOB access to storage, memory or calldata addresses. It can also be used to corrupt the length
slot of the respective array.
A contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production.
tracking in issue #3756.
patched in #3818.
Details
Here the flow for storage
is supposed, but it is generalizable also for the other locations.
When calling slice()
on a storage value, there are compile time bounds checks if the start
and length
values are literals, but of course this cannot happen if they are passed values:
if not is_adhoc_slice:
if length_literal is not None:
if length_literal < 1:
raise ArgumentException("Length cannot be less than 1", length_expr)
if length_literal > arg_type.length:
raise ArgumentException(f"slice out of bounds for {arg_type}", length_expr)
if start_literal is not None:
if start_literal > arg_type.length:
raise ArgumentException(f"slice out of bounds for {arg_type}", start_expr)
if length_literal is not None and start_literal + length_literal > arg_type.length:
raise ArgumentException(f"slice out of bounds for {arg_type}", node)
At runtime, we perform the following equivalent check, but the runtime check does not account for overflows:
["assert", ["le", ["add", start, length], src_len]], # bounds check
The storage slice()
function copies bytes directly from storage into memory and returns the memory value of the resulting slice. This means that, if a user is able to input the start
or length
value, they can force an overflow and access an unrelated storage slot.
In most cases, this will mean they have the ability to forcibly return 0
for the slice, even if this shouldn't be possible. In extreme cases, it will mean they can return another unrelated value from storage.
POC: OOB access
For simplicity, take the following Vyper contract, which takes an argument to determine where in a Bytes[64]
bytestring should be sliced. It should only accept a value of zero, and should revert in all other cases.
# @version ^0.3.9
x: public(Bytes[64])
secret: uint256
@external
def __init__():
self.x = empty(Bytes[64])
self.secret = 42
@external
def slice_it(start: uint256) -> Bytes[64]:
return slice(self.x, start, 64)
We can use the following manual storage to demonstrate the vulnerability:
{"x": {"type": "bytes32", "slot": 0}, "secret": {"type": "uint256", "slot": 3618502788666131106986593281521497120414687020801267626233049500247285301248}}
If we run the following test, passing max - 63
as the start
value, we will overflow the bounds check, but access the storage slot at 1 + (2**256 - 63) / 32
, which is what was set in the above storage layout:
function test__slice_error() public {
c = SuperContract(deployer.deploy_with_custom_storage("src/loose/", "slice_error", "slice_error_storage"));
bytes memory result = c.slice_it(115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639872); // max - 63
console.logBytes(result);
}
The result is that we return the secret value from storage:
POC: length
corruption
OOG
exception doesn't have to be raised - because of the overflow, only a few bytes can be copied, but the length
slot is set with the original input value.
d: public(Bytes[256])
@external
def test():
x : uint256 = 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935 # 2**256-1
self.d = b"\x01\x02\x03\x04\x05\x06"
# s : Bytes[256] = slice(self.d, 1, x)
assert len(slice(self.d, 1, x))==115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935
The corruption of length
can be then used to read dirty memory:
@external
def test():
x: uint256 = 115792089237316195423570985008687907853269984665640564039457584007913129639935 # 2**256 - 1
y: uint256 = 22704331223003175573249212746801550559464702875615796870481879217237868556850 # 0x3232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232323232
z: uint96 = 1
if True:
placeholder : uint256[16] = [y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y, y]
s :String[32] = slice(uint2str(z), 1, x) # uint2str(z) == "1"
#print(len(s))
assert slice(s, 1, 2) == "22"
Impact
The built-in slice()
method can be used for OOB accesses or the corruption of the length
slot.
Summary
The bounds check for slices does not account for the ability for
start + length
to overflow when the values aren't literals.If a
slice()
function uses a non-literal argument for thestart
orlength
variable, this creates the ability for an attacker to overflow the bounds check.This issue can be used to do OOB access to storage, memory or calldata addresses. It can also be used to corrupt the
length
slot of the respective array.A contract search was performed and no vulnerable contracts were found in production.
tracking in issue #3756.
patched in #3818.
Details
Here the flow for
storage
is supposed, but it is generalizable also for the other locations.When calling
slice()
on a storage value, there are compile time bounds checks if thestart
andlength
values are literals, but of course this cannot happen if they are passed values:At runtime, we perform the following equivalent check, but the runtime check does not account for overflows:
The storage
slice()
function copies bytes directly from storage into memory and returns the memory value of the resulting slice. This means that, if a user is able to input thestart
orlength
value, they can force an overflow and access an unrelated storage slot.In most cases, this will mean they have the ability to forcibly return
0
for the slice, even if this shouldn't be possible. In extreme cases, it will mean they can return another unrelated value from storage.POC: OOB access
For simplicity, take the following Vyper contract, which takes an argument to determine where in a
Bytes[64]
bytestring should be sliced. It should only accept a value of zero, and should revert in all other cases.We can use the following manual storage to demonstrate the vulnerability:
If we run the following test, passing
max - 63
as thestart
value, we will overflow the bounds check, but access the storage slot at1 + (2**256 - 63) / 32
, which is what was set in the above storage layout:The result is that we return the secret value from storage:
POC:
length
corruptionOOG
exception doesn't have to be raised - because of the overflow, only a few bytes can be copied, but thelength
slot is set with the original input value.The corruption of
length
can be then used to read dirty memory:Impact
The built-in
slice()
method can be used for OOB accesses or the corruption of thelength
slot.