Vulnerabilities > CVE-2023-28431 - Incorrect Calculation vulnerability in Parity Frontier 20210903/20211013/20220912
Summary
Frontier is an Ethereum compatibility layer for Substrate. Frontier's `modexp` precompile uses `num-bigint` crate under the hood. In the implementation prior to pull request 1017, the cases for modulus being even and modulus being odd are treated separately. Odd modulus uses the fast Montgomery multiplication, and even modulus uses the slow plain power algorithm. This gas cost discrepancy was not accounted for in the `modexp` precompile, leading to possible denial of service attacks. No fixes for `num-bigint` are currently available, and thus this issue is fixed in the short term by raising the gas costs for even modulus, and in the long term fixing it in `num-bigint` or switching to another modexp implementation. The short-term fix for Frontier is deployed at pull request 1017. There are no known workarounds aside from applying the fix.
Vulnerable Configurations
| Part | Description | Count |
|---|---|---|
| Application | 4 |
Common Weakness Enumeration (CWE)
Common Attack Pattern Enumeration and Classification (CAPEC)
- Attack through Shared Data An attacker exploits a data structure shared between multiple applications or an application pool to affect application behavior. Data may be shared between multiple applications or between multiple threads of a single application. Data sharing is usually accomplished through mutual access to a single memory location. If an attacker can manipulate this shared data (usually by co-opting one of the applications or threads) the other applications or threads using the shared data will often continue to trust the validity of the compromised shared data and use it in their calculations. This can result in invalid trust assumptions, corruption of additional data through the normal operations of the other users of the shared data, or even cause a crash or compromise of the sharing applications.
- Integer Attacks An attacker takes advantage of the structure of integer variables to cause these variables to assume values that are not expected by an application. For example, adding one to the largest positive integer in a signed integer variable results in a negative number. Negative numbers may be illegal in an application and the application may prevent an attacker from providing them directly, but the application may not consider that adding two positive numbers can create a negative number do to the structure of integer storage formats.
- Pointer Attack This attack involves an attacker manipulating a pointer within a target application resulting in the application accessing an unintended memory location. This can result in the crashing of the application or, for certain pointer values, access to data that would not normally be possible or the execution of arbitrary code. Since pointers are simply integer variables, Integer Attacks may often be used in Pointer Attacks.
References
- https://github.com/paritytech/frontier/pull/1017
- https://github.com/rust-num/num-bigint/blob/6f2b8e0fc218dbd0f49bebb8db2d1a771fe6bafa/src/biguint/power.rs#L134
- https://github.com/paritytech/frontier/commit/5af12e94d7dfc8a0208a290643a800f55de7b219
- https://github.com/paritytech/frontier/security/advisories/GHSA-fcmm-54jp-7vf6