CVE-2023-41052
Vyperlang Vyper ≤ 0.3.9
Raw vector
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:H/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:NSummary
CVE-2023-41052 is a low-severity Always-Incorrect Control Flow Implementation (CWE-670) vulnerability in Vyperlang Vyper. Its CVSS base score is 3.7 (Low).
Operationally, ranked at the 37th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog; a public proof-of-concept is referenced.
EU & UK References
- 🇪🇺 ENISA EUVD: EUVD-2023-0267
Vulnerability Data
Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language. In affected versions the order of evaluation of the arguments of the builtin functions `uint256_addmod`, `uint256_mulmod`, `ecadd` and `ecmul` does not follow source order. This behaviour is problematic when the evaluation of one…
more
of the arguments produces side effects that other arguments depend on. A patch is currently being developed on pull request #3583. When using builtins from the list above, users should make sure that the arguments of the expression do not produce side effects or, if one does, that no other argument is dependent on those side effects.
- CWE(s)
Related Threats
CVEs Like This One
Affected Assets
Mitigating Controls
Control response
—
—
—
V9.2.1
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 prevent incorrect control-flow implementations via reviews, testing, and static analysis.
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.
Security testing in development and acceptance can detect paths that deviate from intended logic.
Secure development lifecycle processes can catch incorrect control-flow logic during design and code review.
Secure coding standards and reviews directly target flawed control-flow implementations.
Change-management gates may prevent deployment of flawed logic but do not address the coding defect itself.