Evidence used
- No CISA KEV confirmation is currently recorded.
- EPSS is 0.58% for the current model date.
BlackTreeCVE IntelligenceOpenZeppelin · openzeppelin-contracts
Official source article: GitHub GHSA-93HQ-5WGC-JC82 ↗. Check the applicable product and release in the original source.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Medium technical severity with no CISA KEV confirmation; remediate through the normal risk-based patch cycle unless local exposure raises the priority.
Fix not verifiedOpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The proposal creation entrypoint (`propose`) in `GovernorCompatibilityBravo` allows the creation of proposals with a `signatures` array shorter than the `calldatas` array. This causes the additional elements of the latter to be ignored, and if the proposal succeeds the corresponding actions would eventually execute without any calldata. The `ProposalCreated` event correctly represents what will eventually execute, but the proposal parameters as queried through `getActions` appear to respect the original intended calldata. This issue has been patched in 4.8.3. As a workaround, ensure that all proposals that pass through governance have equal length `signatures` and `calldatas` parameters.
OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The proposal creation entrypoint (`propose`) in `GovernorCompatibilityBravo` allows the creation of proposals with a `signatures` array shorter than the `calldatas` array. This causes the additional elements of the latter to be ignored, and if the proposal succeeds the corresponding actions would eventually execute without any calldata. The `ProposalCreated` event correctly represents what will eventually execute, but the proposal parameters as queried through `getActions` appear to respect the original intended calldata. This issue has been patched in 4.8.3. As a workaround, ensure that all proposals that pass through governance have equal length `signatures` and `calldatas` parameters.
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The proposal creation entrypoint (`propose`) in `GovernorCompatibilityBravo` allows the creation of proposals with a `signatures` array shorter than the `calldatas` array. This causes the additional elements of the latter to be ignored, and if the proposal succeeds the corresponding actions would eventually execute without any calldata. The `ProposalCreated` event correctly represents what will eventually execute, but the proposal parameters as queried through `getActions` appear to respect the original intended calldata. This issue has been patched in 4.8.3. As a workaround, ensure that all proposals that pass through governance have equal length `signatures` and `calldatas` parameters.
The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
An attacker operating through a network path may attempt exploitation with low privileges. If successful, the issue may cause the confidentiality, integrity or availability impact described by the vendor.
CVSS severity, EPSS forecast probability, public exploit material and CISA-confirmed exploitation are separate signals.
No CISA KEV match was present at the last successful refresh. This means no confirmation from that source, not proof of no exploitation.
No exploit-tagged reference or CISA SSVC proof-of-concept state is currently recorded. Research may still exist outside the structured feeds.
CWE-20: Improper Input Validation. The product receives input or data, but it does not validate or incorrectly validates that the input has the properties that are required to process the data safely and correctly.
CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:L/UI:R/S:U/C:L/I:H/A:LCommon Vulnerability Scoring System 3.1: the compact vector below is decoded into plain language.
Operational remediation based on structured source evidence.
Published 16 Apr 2023 · Last source change 6 Feb 2025, 16:05 UTC · CWE-20 · Improper Input Validation
Core structured fields are present and their contributing authorities are shown above.
No material field changes have been recorded since change tracking began. Routine source refreshes and cosmetic edits are intentionally excluded.