Duplicate subcall execution via repeated delegatecall
Published Dec 8, 2023 · Updated Aug 2, 2024
Improper control flow in OpenZeppelin Contracts 4.9.4 allows remote attackers to execute each Multicall subcall twice. A merge-conflict resolution duplicated Address.functionDelegateCall inside Multicall.sol's loop, so each data element is delegated once with raw calldata and again with appended context. A contract must inherit and expose the affected Multicall implementation; invoking a batch can then repeat state-changing operations, including asset transfers.
Summary
What happened
Improper control flow in OpenZeppelin Contracts 4.9.4 allows remote attackers to execute each Multicall subcall twice. A merge-conflict resolution duplicated Address.functionDelegateCall inside Multicall.sol's loop, so each data element is delegated once with raw calldata and again with appended context. A contract must inherit and expose the affected Multicall implementation; invoking a batch can then repeat state-changing operations, including asset transfers.
The record
- CVE
- CVE-2023-49798
- Published
- Dec 8, 2023
- Updated
- Aug 2, 2024
- Vendor
- OpenZeppelin
- Product
- OpenZeppelin Contracts
- Classifications
- CWE-670
- Attack vector
- network
- Privileges
- unauthenticated
Timeline
How it unfolded
- Dec 8, 2023CVE publishedPublication date reported by the CVE source.
- Aug 2, 2024Record updatedLatest update available in the CVE record.
Exploitability
Present is not the same as exploitable
Compare your product and version with the public record. A matching version still requires validation against your environment.
Is a vulnerable build present?
Compare these published version ranges with your installed build and any vendor patches.
- Affected versionversion== 4.9.4
What conditions does exploitation require?
What is affected?
Published CVSS scores
CVSS describes severity. EPSS estimates exploitation probability.
Attacks
What attackers are doing with it
Daily unique IPs observed by Shadowserver honeypots for known exploited vulnerabilities (KEVs). Missing observations do not establish an absence of attacks.
Weakness, pattern, technique
Public exploit references
No public exploit references are available in this record.
Labels summarize the accepted research assessment. They do not indicate a test against your environment.
Technologies
Your stack
See the directory against your own environment.
Your stack
Check the software in your environment
Book a demo to see how Hinoki identifies affected software and validates exploitability in your environment.
Book a demo