ink! vulnerable to incorrect decoding of storage value when using `DelegateCall`

Description

Summary

The return value when using delegate call mechanics, either through CallBuilder::delegate or ink_env::invoke_contract_delegate, is being decoded incorrectly.

Description

Consider this minimal example:

// First contract, this will be performing a delegate call to the `Callee`.
#[ink(storage)]
pub struct Caller {
    value: u128,
}

#[ink(message)]
pub fn get_value(&self, callee_code_hash: Hash) -> u128 {
    let result = build_call::<DefaultEnvironment>()
        .delegate(callee_code_hash)
        .exec_input(ExecutionInput::new(Selector::new(ink::selector_bytes!(
            "get_value"
        ))))
        .returns::<u128>()
        .invoke();

    result
}

// Different contract, using this code hash for the delegate call.
#[ink(storage)]
pub struct Callee {
    value: u128,
}

#[ink(message)]
pub fn get_value(&self) -> u128 {
    self.value
}

In this example we are executing the Callee code in the context of the Caller contract. This means we'll be using the storage values of the Caller contract.

Running this code we expect the delegate call to return value as it was stored in the Caller contract. However, due to the reported bug a different value is returned (for the case of uints it is 256 times the expected value).

Impact

After conducting an analysis of the on-chain deployments of ink! contracts on Astar, Shiden, Aleph Zero, Amplitude and Pendulum, we have found that no contracts on those chains have been affected by the issue.

This bug was related to the mechanics around decoding a call's return buffer, which was changed as part of https://github.com/paritytech/ink/pull/1450. Since this feature was only released in ink! 4.0.0 no previous versions are affected.

Mitigations

If you have an ink! 4.x series contract, please update it to the 4.2.1 patch release that we just published.

Credits

Thank you Facundo Lerena from CoinFabrik for reporting this problem in a well-structured and responsible way.

Basic information

Type
reviewed
Severity
medium
Advisory on GitHub
Open advisory ↗
Repository advisory
Open repository advisory ↗
Source code
Browse source ↗
Published (advisory)
2023-06-14 20:11:38 UTC
Updated
2023-11-05 05:03:22 UTC
GitHub reviewed
2023-06-14 20:11:38 UTC
NVD published
2023-06-14

EPSS Score

Score Percentile
0.24% 46.84%

CVSS Scores

Base score Version Severity Vector
5.3 3.1
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:L/A:N Click to expand
Attack vector (AV:N)
Could be attacked over the internet or any normal routed network—not just someone sitting at the machine.
Attack complexity (AC:L)
Once they can reach the bug, pulling it off is straightforward—no weird race conditions or rare setup.
Privileges required (PR:N)
No account or special rights needed—anonymous or random user is enough.
User interaction (UI:N)
Nobody has to click “OK” or open a trap file; it can work without a victim helping.
Scope (S:U)
Damage stays in the same “trust bubble” as the broken component—no big spill into unrelated systems.
Confidentiality (C:N)
Doesn’t really leak secrets in a meaningful way.
Integrity (I:L)
Attackers could change some data, but it’s limited—not everything goes.
Availability (A:N)
Service keeps running; no real outage angle.

Identifiers

CWEs

CWE id Name
CWE-253 Incorrect Check of Function Return Value
CWE-754 Improper Check for Unusual or Exceptional Conditions

Affected packages (2)

Vulnerable version ranges and first patched releases as published by GitHub.

Ecosystem Package Vulnerable range First patched Vulnerable functions
rust ink >= 4.0.0, < 4.2.1 4.2.1
rust ink_env >= 4.0.0, < 4.2.1 4.2.1

References

cvelogic Threat Intelligence