Skip to content

ASA-2024-003: Missing `BlockedAddressed` Validation in Vesting Module

Moderate severity GitHub Reviewed Published Feb 20, 2024 in cosmos/cosmos-sdk • Updated May 31, 2024

Package

gomod github.com/cosmos/cosmos-sdk (Go)

Affected versions

>= 0.50.0, <= 0.50.3
<= 0.47.8

Patched versions

0.50.4
0.47.9

Description

ASA-2024-003: Missing BlockedAddressed Validation in Vesting Module

Component: Cosmos SDK
Criticality: Low
Affected Versions: Cosmos SDK versions <= 0.50.3; <= 0.47.8
Affected Users: Chain developers, Validator and Node operators
Impact: Denial of Service

Description

A vulnerability was identified in the x/auth/vesting module, which can allow a user to create a periodic vesting account on a blocked address, for example a non-initialized module account. Additional validation was added to prevent creation of a periodic vesting account in this scenario.

If this case is triggered, there is the potential for a chain halt if the uninitialized account in question is called by GetModuleAccount in Begin/EndBlock of a module. This combination of an uninitialized blocked module account is not common.

Next Steps for Impacted Parties

If your chain has uninitialized blocked module accounts, it is recommended to proactively initialize them, as they are often initialized during a chain migration or during init genesis.

If you are a chain developer on an affected version of the Cosmos SDK, it is advised to update to the latest available version of the Cosmos SDK for your project. Once a patched version is available, it is recommended that network operators upgrade.

A Github Security Advisory for this issue is available in the Cosmos-SDK repository. For more information about Cosmos SDK, see https://docs.cosmos.network/.

This issue was found by Dongsam who reported it to the Cosmos Bug Bounty Program on HackerOne on January 30, 2024. If you believe you have found a bug in the Interchain Stack or would like to contribute to the program by reporting a bug, please see https://hackerone.com/cosmos.

Addendum

A variant trigger of this issue via the x/authz and x/feegrant modules was discovered by Richie who reported it to the Cosmos Bug Bounty Program on HackerOne on April 6th, 2024, and was subsequently fixed by the Cosmos SDK team on April 21st, 2024. The guidance for mitigating this additional variant is the same as the parent advisory, so it is suggested that all chains proactively initialize module accounts if they have not already done so.

References

@mizmo18 mizmo18 published to cosmos/cosmos-sdk Feb 20, 2024
Published to the GitHub Advisory Database Feb 21, 2024
Reviewed Feb 21, 2024
Last updated May 31, 2024

Severity

Moderate

CVSS overall score

This score calculates overall vulnerability severity from 0 to 10 and is based on the Common Vulnerability Scoring System (CVSS).
/ 10

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector
Network
Attack complexity
Low
Privileges required
Low
User interaction
None
Scope
Unchanged
Confidentiality
None
Integrity
None
Availability
High

CVSS v3 base metrics

Attack vector: More severe the more the remote (logically and physically) an attacker can be in order to exploit the vulnerability.
Attack complexity: More severe for the least complex attacks.
Privileges required: More severe if no privileges are required.
User interaction: More severe when no user interaction is required.
Scope: More severe when a scope change occurs, e.g. one vulnerable component impacts resources in components beyond its security scope.
Confidentiality: More severe when loss of data confidentiality is highest, measuring the level of data access available to an unauthorized user.
Integrity: More severe when loss of data integrity is the highest, measuring the consequence of data modification possible by an unauthorized user.
Availability: More severe when the loss of impacted component availability is highest.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:N/A:H

Weaknesses

CVE ID

No known CVE

GHSA ID

GHSA-4j93-fm92-rp4m

Source code

Credits

Loading Checking history
See something to contribute? Suggest improvements for this vulnerability.