VulnerabilityPublished 19 Jan 2024Updated 30 May 2025

CVE-2023-47033: MultiSigWallet 0xF0C99 was discovered to contain a reentrancy vulnerability via the function

Source CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.5 High.

Data as of 26 Oct 2026, 14:05 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.5High

How severe the flaw is on the 0–10 CVSS scale.

EPSS: 0.4% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 42% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.

CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector: Network
Attack Complexity: Low
Privileges Required: None
User Interaction: None
Scope: Unchanged
Confidentiality: None
Integrity: High
Availability: None

Bold values are the worst case: easiest to exploit or largest impact.

Attack Vector: Network: The vulnerable component is bound to the network stack and the set of possible attackers extends beyond the other options listed, up to and including the entire Internet. Such a vulnerability is often termed 'remotely exploitable' and can be thought of as an attack being exploitable at the protocol level one or more network hops away (e.g., across one or more routers).
Attack Complexity: Low: Specialized access conditions or extenuating circumstances do not exist. An attacker can expect repeatable success against the vulnerable component.
Privileges Required: None: The attacker is unauthorized prior to attack, and therefore does not require any access to settings or files to carry out an attack.
User Interaction: None: The vulnerable system can be exploited without any interaction from any user.
Scope: Unchanged: An exploited vulnerability can only affect resources managed by the same security authority. In this case, the vulnerable component and the impacted component are either the same, or both are managed by the same security authority.
Confidentiality: None: There is no loss of confidentiality within the impacted component.
Integrity: High: There is a total loss of integrity, or a complete loss of protection. For example, the attacker is able to modify any/all files protected by the impacted component. Alternatively, only some files can be modified, but malicious modification would present a direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.
Availability: None: There is no impact to availability within the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 19 Jan 2024
Detectable: no evidence on record.
No public nuclei template indexed
Weaponised: no evidence on record.
No public exploit code indexed in Metasploit or Exploit-DB
Exploited in the wildExploited: no evidence on record.
Not in CISA KEV and no source reports exploitation
Observed by OffSeq MirageSeen by Mirage: no evidence on record.
No attack traffic recorded by OffSeq Mirage sensors

A missing step is not evidence of safety. Sources: cve.org (opens in a new tab), the Metasploit, Exploit-DB and nuclei-templates index as of 26 Oct 2026.

Disclosed: The CVE record is public on cve.org. Its publication is t = 0.
Detectable: A public nuclei template can find exposed instances, for defenders and attackers alike.
Weaponised: Public exploit code exists in Metasploit or Exploit-DB, or CISA SSVC or the CVSS exploit maturity reports a public proof of concept.
Exploited in the wild: CISA KEV lists it, CISA SSVC rates exploitation active, or a source reports attacks.
Observed by OffSeq Mirage: OffSeq Mirage honeypot sensors recorded attack traffic for this CVE, or found exposed hosts without attack traffic.

Moments are spaced evenly, not to scale; a dashed line marks a gap of six months or more. Deltas count from t = 0. Sources that give only a date (CISA KEV, Exploit-DB, or a time of exactly 00:00Z) read “same day” rather than hours. Metasploit modules carry the flaw’s disclosure date, not their release date, and nuclei templates carry no date, so both appear above but not on the timeline.

What to do

AI-suggested

To mitigate this vulnerability, organizations should conduct a thorough audit of their MultiSigWallet smart contracts, specifically reviewing the executeTransaction function for reentrancy risks. Implementing the 'checks-effects-interactions' pattern is critical: ensure that all internal state changes occur before any external calls. Utilizing established smart contract libraries that have been audited and tested for reentrancy protection, such as OpenZeppelin's ReentrancyGuard, can help prevent such attacks. If possible, upgrade to patched versions of the wallet contract once available. Employing transaction throttling or limiting the number of calls that can be made in a single transaction may reduce risk. Additionally, deploying monitoring tools to detect unusual transaction patterns or repeated calls to executeTransaction can provide early warning signs of exploitation attempts. Finally, organizations should consider formal verification of smart contracts and engage in continuous security assessments as part of their blockchain security strategy.

Description

MultiSigWallet 0xF0C99 was discovered to contain a reentrancy vulnerability via the function executeTransaction.

Impact

For European organizations utilizing blockchain technologies, decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms, or smart contract-based wallets, this vulnerability poses a significant risk to the integrity of multi-signature wallet transactions. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized transaction execution, resulting in financial losses or theft of digital assets. Given the increasing adoption of blockchain solutions in Europe, particularly in financial services, fintech startups, and digital asset management, the impact could extend to both private and public sector entities. The integrity compromise could undermine trust in blockchain-based transaction systems and cause regulatory and compliance challenges, especially under stringent European data protection and financial regulations. Additionally, organizations relying on multi-signature wallets for secure asset custody could face operational disruptions and reputational damage if exploited.

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 8 Jul 2025, 16:26 UTC

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats