CVE-2023-34449
Parity Ink\! 4.0.0 – 4.2.1
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NCVSS and EPSS are reproduced from their sources (NVD, FIRST EPSS). Risk Priority is our own derived reading, not an NVD score.
Summary
CVE-2023-34449 is a medium-severity Incorrect Check of Function Return Value (CWE-253) vulnerability in Parity Ink\!. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).
Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique Junk Data (T1001.001); ranked in the top 39% of CVEs by exploit likelihood; it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-1743
Vulnerability Data
ink! is an embedded domain specific language to write smart contracts in Rust for blockchains built on the Substrate framework. Starting in version 4.0.0 and prior to version 4.2.1, the return value when using delegate call mechanics, either through `CallBuilder::delegate`…
more
or `ink_env::invoke_contract_delegate`, is decoded incorrectly. This bug was related to the mechanics around decoding a call's return buffer, which was changed as part of pull request 1450. Since this feature was only released in ink! 4.0.0, no previous versions are affected. Users who have an ink! 4.x series contract should upgrade to 4.2.1 to receive a patch.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Likely Mitigating Controls AI
Per-CVE control mapping for this CVE has not run yet; the list below is derived from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry.
Requires detection and response to audit logging failures as an unusual or exceptional condition.
Implements detection of unusual or exceptional conditions followed by safe mode entry, reducing the window for exploitation of unchecked conditions.
Training ensures users perform required checks for unusual or exceptional conditions as part of contingency roles, limiting attacker leverage from skipped validations.
IR testing directly validates checks for unusual or exceptional conditions that could indicate security incidents.
Requires ongoing monitoring of organization-defined metrics and analysis, enabling checks for unusual or exceptional conditions.
Security testing routinely checks for unusual or exceptional inputs/conditions, identifying missing validation steps that flaw remediation then resolves.
Requires detection of unusual conditions followed by a controlled transition to the defined failure state.
MTTF determination forces explicit checks for conditions that precede predictable component failure.
Mitigating Controls (NIST CSF 2.0) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→CSF cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Secure SDLC practices directly enforce proper error-handling and return-value checking during development.
Mitigating Controls (ISO/IEC 27001:2022 Annex A) AI
Derived directly from the weakness types (CWEs) cited in the NVD entry via our AI-authored CWE→ISO cross-walk (authority under review) — links open the control.
Logging can record unhandled exceptions but does not prevent the weakness itself.
Monitoring may detect symptoms of unhandled conditions but does not eliminate the root weakness.
Secure SDLC mandates return-value checks and error handling, directly reducing CWE-253.
A.8.26 requires that security requirements (including input validation, resilience against injections, output controls, error handling, etc.) be identified and specified during development or acquisition; it does not itself enforce, implement or assure correct checking of function return values and therefore does not stop exploitation of CWE-253 defects that remain present.
A.8.27 establishes and applies secure engineering principles (e.g. least privilege, security by design, distrust external input, fail securely) and requires design reviews against known attack patterns; CWE-253 is a specific code-level implementation error in checking function returns that these principles and reviews do not stop from being introduced or exploited.
Hardening callouts derived
DISA STIG baselines are authored against specific weaknesses. Where this CVE cites a broad weakness class, the mapping is not asserted at that abstraction (owner ruling, 2026-09-25: grade only at Base and below), so no rule is shown here rather than a rule shown against the wrong grain.
- No fine-grained STIG row for CWE-754, a class-level weakness. Rules are authored against its narrower children: CWE-354.