Cyber Resilience

CVE-2024-32649

Vyperlang Vyper ≤ 0.4.0

Published
25 April 2024
Modified
02 January 2025
Patch / advisory
CVSS Score v3.1 5.3
Click a component to see what it means
Raw vectorCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N
EPSS Score 0.0046 38th percentile
Risk Priority 46 floored blend · peak EPSS

Summary

CVE-2024-32649 is a medium-severity Eval Injection (CWE-95) vulnerability in Vyperlang Vyper. Its CVSS base score is 5.3 (Medium).

Operationally, exploitation aligns with the MITRE ATT&CK technique JavaScript (T1059.007); ranked at the 38th percentile by exploit likelihood (below the median); it is not currently listed in the CISA KEV catalog.

The strongest mitigations our analysis identified map to SA-11 (Developer Testing and Evaluation) and SI-10 (Information Input Validation) — see the control section below for these in your framework.

OWASP Top 10 for Web (2025)

EU & UK References

Vulnerability Data

Vyper is a pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum virtual machine. In versions 0.3.10 and prior, using the `sqrt` builtin can result in double eval vulnerability when the argument has side-effects. It can be seen that the `build_IR` function…

more

of the `sqrt` builtin doesn't cache the argument to the stack. As such, it can be evaluated multiple times (instead of retrieving the value from the stack). No vulnerable production contracts were found. Additionally, double evaluation of side-effects should be easily discoverable in client tests. As such, the impact is low. As of time of publication, no fixed versions are available.

CWE(s)

Related Threats

MITRE ATT&CK Enterprise Techniques

T1059.007 JavaScript Execution
Adversaries may abuse various implementations of JavaScript for execution.
T1059 Command and Scripting Interpreter Execution
Adversaries may abuse command and script interpreters to execute commands, scripts, or binaries.
T1059.001 PowerShell Execution
Adversaries may abuse PowerShell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.004 Unix Shell Execution
Adversaries may abuse Unix shell commands and scripts for execution.
T1059.005 Visual Basic Execution
Adversaries may abuse Visual Basic (VB) for execution.
T1059.006 Python Execution
Adversaries may abuse Python commands and scripts for execution.
Derived from this CVE’s CWE(s) via the direct CWE→ATT&CK cross-walk.

CVEs Like This One

CVE-2024-32647Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2023-37902Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2023-39363Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2024-24561Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2025-21607Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2023-42441Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2024-32646Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2023-42443Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2024-24563Same product: Vyperlang Vyper
CVE-2023-31146Same product: Vyperlang Vyper

Affected Assets

vyperlang
vyper
≤ 0.4.0

Mitigating Controls

Control response

Prevent
Stop it (NIST 800-53)

Detect
Catch it (NIST detect / respond)

Harden
Shrink the surface (DISA STIG)

Validate
Prove the fix (OWASP ASVS)
  • V1.3.2

Mitigating Controls (NIST 800-53 r5) AI

Developer testing and code analysis can discover eval-injection flaws but does not stop their introduction.

Input validation explicitly requires neutralizing untrusted data before it reaches dynamic evaluation constructs such as eval.

Secure-development standards and tools can mandate safe coding patterns that avoid unsafe dynamic evaluation.

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.

PR.PS-06 mostly match
prevents

Secure SDLC practices directly require input neutralization and avoidance of unsafe dynamic evaluation.

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.

finds

Security testing in development can detect eval injection vulnerabilities before deployment.

prevents

Secure development life cycle mandates input validation and safe coding practices that directly prevent eval injection.

prevents

Application security requirements include rules against dynamic code execution of untrusted input.

prevents

Secure architecture principles discourage unsafe dynamic evaluation constructs.

prevents

Secure coding explicitly requires neutralization of input before dynamic evaluation, directly mitigating eval injection.

none

Separation of environments limits the blast radius if eval injection occurs in non-production.

References