Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

fix(deps): update dependency @openzeppelin/contracts to v4.9.5 [security] #3184

Conversation

renovate[bot]
Copy link
Contributor

@renovate renovate bot commented Sep 25, 2024

This PR contains the following updates:

Package Change Age Adoption Passing Confidence
@openzeppelin/contracts (source) 4.9.3 -> 4.9.5 age adoption passing confidence

Warning

Some dependencies could not be looked up. Check the Dependency Dashboard for more information.

GitHub Vulnerability Alerts

CVE-2023-30541

Impact

A function in the implementation contract may be inaccessible if its selector clashes with one of the proxy's own selectors. Specifically, if the clashing function has a different signature with incompatible ABI encoding, the proxy could revert while attempting to decode the arguments from calldata.

The probability of an accidental clash is negligible, but one could be caused deliberately.

Patches

The issue has been fixed in v4.8.3.

Workarounds

If a function appears to be inaccessible for this reason, it may be possible to craft the calldata such that ABI decoding does not fail at the proxy and the function is properly proxied through.

References

https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/pull/4154

CVE-2023-30542

Impact

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.

Patches

This issue has been patched in v4.8.3.

Workarounds

Ensure that all proposals that pass through governance have equal length signatures and calldatas parameters.

CVE-2023-34234

Impact

By frontrunning the creation of a proposal, an attacker can become the proposer and gain the ability to cancel it. The attacker can do this repeatedly to try to prevent a proposal from being proposed at all.

This impacts the Governor contract in v4.9.0 only, and the GovernorCompatibilityBravo contract since v4.3.0.

Patches

The problem has been patched in 4.9.1 by introducing opt-in frontrunning protection.

Workarounds

Submit the proposal creation transaction to an endpoint with frontrunning protection.

Credit

Reported by Lior Abadi and Joaquin Pereyra from Coinspect.

References

https://www.coinspect.com/openzeppelin-governor-dos/

CVE-2023-34459

Impact

When the verifyMultiProof, verifyMultiProofCalldata, processMultiProof, or processMultiProofCalldata functions are in use, it is possible to construct merkle trees that allow forging a valid multiproof for an arbitrary set of leaves.

A contract may be vulnerable if it uses multiproofs for verification and the merkle tree that is processed includes a node with value 0 at depth 1 (just under the root). This could happen inadvertently for balanced trees with 3 leaves or less, if the leaves are not hashed. This could happen deliberately if a malicious tree builder includes such a node in the tree.

A contract is not vulnerable if it uses single-leaf proving (verify, verifyCalldata, processProof, or processProofCalldata), or if it uses multiproofs with a known tree that has hashed leaves. Standard merkle trees produced or validated with the @​openzeppelin/merkle-tree library are safe.

Patches

The problem has been patched in 4.9.2.

Workarounds

If you are using multiproofs: When constructing merkle trees hash the leaves and do not insert empty nodes in your trees. Using the @​openzeppelin/merkle-tree package eliminates this issue. Do not accept user-provided merkle roots without reconstructing at least the first level of the tree. Verify the merkle tree structure by reconstructing it from the leaves.

CVE-2023-40014

Impact

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. Starting in version 4.0.0 and prior to version 4.9.3, contracts using ERC2771Context along with a custom trusted forwarder may see _msgSender return address(0) in calls that originate from the forwarder with calldata shorter than 20 bytes. This combination of circumstances does not appear to be common, in particular it is not the case for MinimalForwarder from OpenZeppelin Contracts, or any deployed forwarder the team is aware of, given that the signer address is appended to all calls that originate from these forwarders.

Patches

The problem has been patched in v4.9.3.


Release Notes

OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts (@​openzeppelin/contracts)

v4.9.5

Compare Source

  • Multicall: Make aware of non-canonical context (i.e. msg.sender is not _msgSender()), allowing compatibility with ERC2771Context. Patch duplicated Address.functionDelegateCall in v4.9.4 (removed).

v4.9.4

Compare Source

  • ERC2771Context and Context: Introduce a _contextPrefixLength() getter, used to trim extra information appended to msg.data.
  • Multicall: Make aware of non-canonical context (i.e. msg.sender is not _msgSender()), allowing compatibility with ERC2771Context.

Configuration

📅 Schedule: Branch creation - "" (UTC), Automerge - At any time (no schedule defined).

🚦 Automerge: Disabled by config. Please merge this manually once you are satisfied.

Rebasing: Whenever PR becomes conflicted, or you tick the rebase/retry checkbox.

🔕 Ignore: Close this PR and you won't be reminded about this update again.


  • If you want to rebase/retry this PR, check this box

This PR was generated by Mend Renovate. View the repository job log.

…ity]

| datasource | package                 | from  | to    |
| ---------- | ----------------------- | ----- | ----- |
| npm        | @openzeppelin/contracts | 4.9.3 | 4.9.5 |


Signed-off-by: renovate[bot] <29139614+renovate[bot]@users.noreply.github.com>
Copy link
Contributor

coderabbitai bot commented Sep 25, 2024

Important

Review skipped

Bot user detected.

To trigger a single review, invoke the @coderabbitai review command.

You can disable this status message by setting the reviews.review_status to false in the CodeRabbit configuration file.


🪧 Tips

Chat

There are 3 ways to chat with CodeRabbit:

  • Review comments: Directly reply to a review comment made by CodeRabbit. Example:
    • I pushed a fix in commit <commit_id>, please review it.
    • Generate unit testing code for this file.
    • Open a follow-up GitHub issue for this discussion.
  • Files and specific lines of code (under the "Files changed" tab): Tag @coderabbitai in a new review comment at the desired location with your query. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai generate unit testing code for this file.
    • @coderabbitai modularize this function.
  • PR comments: Tag @coderabbitai in a new PR comment to ask questions about the PR branch. For the best results, please provide a very specific query, as very limited context is provided in this mode. Examples:
    • @coderabbitai gather interesting stats about this repository and render them as a table. Additionally, render a pie chart showing the language distribution in the codebase.
    • @coderabbitai read src/utils.ts and generate unit testing code.
    • @coderabbitai read the files in the src/scheduler package and generate a class diagram using mermaid and a README in the markdown format.
    • @coderabbitai help me debug CodeRabbit configuration file.

Note: Be mindful of the bot's finite context window. It's strongly recommended to break down tasks such as reading entire modules into smaller chunks. For a focused discussion, use review comments to chat about specific files and their changes, instead of using the PR comments.

CodeRabbit Commands (Invoked using PR comments)

  • @coderabbitai pause to pause the reviews on a PR.
  • @coderabbitai resume to resume the paused reviews.
  • @coderabbitai review to trigger an incremental review. This is useful when automatic reviews are disabled for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai full review to do a full review from scratch and review all the files again.
  • @coderabbitai summary to regenerate the summary of the PR.
  • @coderabbitai resolve resolve all the CodeRabbit review comments.
  • @coderabbitai configuration to show the current CodeRabbit configuration for the repository.
  • @coderabbitai help to get help.

Other keywords and placeholders

  • Add @coderabbitai ignore anywhere in the PR description to prevent this PR from being reviewed.
  • Add @coderabbitai summary to generate the high-level summary at a specific location in the PR description.
  • Add @coderabbitai anywhere in the PR title to generate the title automatically.

Documentation and Community

  • Visit our Documentation for detailed information on how to use CodeRabbit.
  • Join our Discord Community to get help, request features, and share feedback.
  • Follow us on X/Twitter for updates and announcements.

Copy link

codecov bot commented Sep 25, 2024

Codecov Report

All modified and coverable lines are covered by tests ✅

Project coverage is 41.10511%. Comparing base (9418b40) to head (846deed).
Report is 11 commits behind head on master.

Additional details and impacted files
@@                 Coverage Diff                 @@
##              master       #3184         +/-   ##
===================================================
- Coverage   41.54443%   41.10511%   -0.43932%     
===================================================
  Files            460         454          -6     
  Lines          25770       25554        -216     
  Branches         357         293         -64     
===================================================
- Hits           10706       10504        -202     
+ Misses         14326       14312         -14     
  Partials         738         738                 
Flag Coverage Δ
packages 90.96267% <ø> (ø)
solidity 99.16286% <ø> (+0.79684%) ⬆️

Flags with carried forward coverage won't be shown. Click here to find out more.

☔ View full report in Codecov by Sentry.
📢 Have feedback on the report? Share it here.

Copy link

Deploying sanguine-fe with  Cloudflare Pages  Cloudflare Pages

Latest commit: 846deed
Status: ✅  Deploy successful!
Preview URL: https://4874679c.sanguine-fe.pages.dev
Branch Preview URL: https://renovate-contracts-core-npm.sanguine-fe.pages.dev

View logs

@ChiTimesChi
Copy link
Collaborator

Closing as not relevant

@github-actions github-actions bot deleted the renovate/contracts-core-npm-openzeppelin-contracts-vulnerability branch September 25, 2024 13:24
Copy link
Contributor Author

renovate bot commented Sep 25, 2024

Renovate Ignore Notification

Because you closed this PR without merging, Renovate will ignore this update (4.9.5). You will get a PR once a newer version is released. To ignore this dependency forever, add it to the ignoreDeps array of your Renovate config.

If you accidentally closed this PR, or if you changed your mind: rename this PR to get a fresh replacement PR.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants