CVE-2024-22419VulnerabilityPublished 18 Jan 2024Updated 2 Jun 2025

CVE-2024-22419: vyperlang vyper · Classic Buffer Overflow

Affects vyperlang vyperSource CVE Database V5

Not known to be exploited · CVSS 7.3 High : upgrade to 0.4.0 soon.

Data as of 25 Oct 2026, 19:02 UTC

CVSS 3.1 base score

7.3High

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

EPSS: 0.7% chance of exploitation in 30 days – higher than 55% of CVEsExploit Prediction Scoring System: the likelihood attackers will use this flaw soon.
Patch: Available – fixed in 0.4.0

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

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

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: Low: There is some loss of confidentiality. Access to some restricted information is obtained, but the attacker does not have control over what information is obtained, or the amount or kind of loss is limited. The information disclosure does not cause a direct, serious loss to the impacted component.
Integrity: Low: Modification of data is possible, but the attacker does not have control over the consequence of a modification, or the amount of modification is limited. The data modification does not have a direct, serious impact on the impacted component.
Availability: Low: Performance is reduced or there are interruptions in resource availability. Even if repeated exploitation of the vulnerability is possible, the attacker does not have the ability to completely deny service to legitimate users. The resources in the impacted component are either partially available all of the time, or fully available only some of the time, but overall there is no direct, serious consequence to the impacted component.

Definitions: FIRST CVSS v3.1 specification.

Exploitation evidence

Disclosed: evidence found.
CVE published 18 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 2026-10-25.

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 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

Upgrade vyperlang vyper to 0.4.0.

Affected software

Product	Affected	Fixed in
PyPIvyper`pkg:pypi/vyper`Other threats	Affected <0.4.0	Fixed in 0.4.0

Check your own hosts for these packages with threat-finder (opens in a new tab), our free open-source scanner.

AI-suggested

1. Immediate upgrade to Vyper version 0.4.0 or later, where the buffer overflow issue in `concat` has been fixed. 2. Conduct thorough code audits of existing smart contracts developed with Vyper versions prior to 0.4.0 to identify any usage of the `concat` built-in function, especially in internal functions near return statements. 3. Implement rigorous testing strategies including fuzz testing and boundary condition tests focused on byte array concatenations to detect any unexpected behavior caused by memory overflows. 4. For contracts already deployed, consider redeploying updated versions after thorough testing, as the immutable nature of blockchain contracts prevents patching in place. 5. Employ static and dynamic analysis tools specialized for smart contract security to detect potential memory safety issues. 6. Educate development teams on secure smart contract coding practices and the importance of using updated language versions. 7. Monitor blockchain activity for anomalous contract behavior that could indicate exploitation attempts. 8. Engage with blockchain security auditors to validate contract integrity post-migration to patched Vyper versions.

Description

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.

Impact

For European organizations involved in blockchain development, decentralized finance (DeFi), or any Ethereum-based smart contract deployment, this vulnerability poses a significant risk. Exploitation could lead to unauthorized manipulation of contract logic, potentially resulting in financial loss, data corruption, or denial of service within smart contract ecosystems. Given the immutable nature of blockchain transactions, any corrupted contract logic could have irreversible consequences. European fintech companies, blockchain startups, and enterprises integrating Ethereum smart contracts into their services could face reputational damage and financial liabilities if vulnerable Vyper versions are used. Additionally, regulatory scrutiny in Europe regarding operational security and consumer protection in financial services could increase if such vulnerabilities lead to breaches or losses. Although no vulnerable contracts have been found in production, the risk remains for organizations that have not updated to Vyper 0.4.0 or later. The decentralized and borderless nature of blockchain means that attacks could originate globally but impact European entities equally. Therefore, European organizations must prioritize patching and auditing their smart contracts to mitigate this threat.

CWE-120Buffer Copy without Checking Size of Input ('Classic Buffer Overflow') (opens in a new tab)
Base weaknessLikelihood of exploit: HighCWE Top 25 (2025): #11
The product copies an input buffer to an output buffer without verifying that the size of the input buffer is less than the size of the output buffer.
Requirements · Language Selection
Use a language that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Architecture and Design · Libraries or Frameworks
Use a vetted library or framework that does not allow this weakness to occur or provides constructs that make this weakness easier to avoid.
Operation · Build and Compilation · Environment Hardening
Use automatic buffer overflow detection mechanisms that are offered by certain compilers or compiler extensions. Examples include: the Microsoft Visual Studio /GS flag, Fedora/Red Hat FORTIFY_SOURCE GCC flag, StackGuard, and ProPolice, which provide various mechanisms including canary-based detection and range/index…
OWASP Cheat Sheets
Docker Security (opens in a new tab)
XML Security (opens in a new tab)
OWASP ASVS 4.0.3
V5.4.1 (opens in a new tab)
V14.1.2 (opens in a new tab)
V13.3.1 (opens in a new tab)
Attack patterns
Buffer Overflow via Environment Variables (opens in a new tab)
Overflow Buffers (opens in a new tab)
Client-side Injection-induced Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
Filter Failure through Buffer Overflow (opens in a new tab)
MIME Conversion (opens in a new tab)
From MITRE CWE, MITRE CAPEC and OWASP (Top 10, OpenCRE).

References

Community reviews

Loading reviews…

Exploitation evidence

What to do

Affected software

Description

AI analysisMachine-generated, updated 3 Jul 2025, 15:57 UTC

WeaknessesCWE-120

Technical details

References

Community reviews

Related threats