{"id":"CVE-2022-29219","aliases":["EUVD-2022-3638","GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"],"status":"published","title":"Integer Overflow in Lodestar","description":"Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.","severity":{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N","level":"high","assessor":"cna","from":"cve"},"epss":{"day":"2026-11-10","score":0.01344,"percentile":0.71614,"model":"v2026.06.15"},"facts":{"in_kev":false,"known_exploited":false,"public_exploit":false,"fix_available":true},"cwes":["CWE-190"],"published":"2022-05-24T14:15:14Z","modified":"2026-10-28T02:30:35Z","fixes":[{"ecosystem":"npm","package":"@chainsafe/lodestar","fixed_in":["0.36.0"],"sources":["ghsa","osv"]}],"affected":[{"source":"ghsa","ecosystem":"npm","package":"@chainsafe/lodestar","ranges":[{"type":"ECOSYSTEM","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0.36.0"}]}]},{"source":"osv","ecosystem":"npm","package":"@chainsafe/lodestar","ranges":[{"type":"SEMVER","events":[{"introduced":"0"},{"fixed":"0.36.0"}]}]}],"products":[{"vendor":"chainsafe","product":"lodestar"}],"references":[{"url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9","tags":["x_refsource_CONFIRM","x_transferred","Patch","Third Party Advisory","advisory","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977","tags":["x_refsource_MISC","x_transferred","Patch","Third Party Advisory","fix","web"]},{"url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0","tags":["x_refsource_MISC","x_transferred","Release Notes","Third Party Advisory","web"]},{"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29219","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"},{"url":"https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2022/29xxx/CVE-2022-29219.json","tags":["advisory"]},{"url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar","tags":["package"]}],"sources":{"cve":[{"id":"CVE-2022-29219","title":"Integer Overflow in Lodestar","description":"Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.","status":"published","published":"2022-05-24T14:15:14Z","modified":"2025-04-23T18:22:36.298Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N","level":"high","assessor":"cna"}],"cwes":["CWE-190"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:34:36.578327Z"}],"euvd":[{"id":"EUVD-2022-3638","description":"Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.","status":"published","published":"2022-05-24T14:15:14Z","modified":"2025-04-23T18:22:36Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N","level":"high"}],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T20:52:08.95736Z"}],"ghsa":[{"id":"GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9","title":"AttesterSlashing number overflow","description":"### Impact\n\nPossible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain.\n\nSince we represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view _valid_ `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as _invalid_, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network.\n\nSimilarly Lodestar may consider _invalid_ `ProposerSlashing` as _valid_, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network.\n\n### Patches\n\nhttps://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977\n\n### Workarounds\n\nUse `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so we will carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.","status":"published","published":"2022-05-24T22:21:10Z","modified":"2023-01-27T05:01:57Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-190"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:36:17.04874Z"}],"nvd":[{"id":"CVE-2022-29219","description":"Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.","status":"published","published":"2022-05-24T15:15:07.843Z","modified":"2026-06-17T04:39:51.28Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N","level":"high","assessor":"secondary"},{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N","level":"high","assessor":"primary"},{"version":"2.0","score":5,"vector":"AV:N/AC:L/Au:N/C:N/I:P/A:N","level":"medium","assessor":"primary"}],"cwes":["CWE-190"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T14:07:21.261605Z"}],"osv":[{"id":"CVE-2022-29219","title":"Integer Overflow in Lodestar","description":"Lodestar is a TypeScript implementation of the Ethereum Consensus specification. Prior to version 0.36.0, there is a possible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain. Because the developers represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view valid_`AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as invalid, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network. Similarly, Lodestar may consider invalid `ProposerSlashing` as valid, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network. Version 0.36.0 contains a fix for this issue. As a workaround, use `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so one may carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.","status":"published","published":"2022-05-24T14:15:14Z","modified":"2026-10-28T02:30:35.85830885Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-190"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:44:25.164673Z"},{"id":"GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9","title":"AttesterSlashing number overflow","description":"### Impact\n\nPossible consensus split given maliciously-crafted `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` being included on-chain.\n\nSince we represent `uint64` values as native javascript `number`s, there is an issue when those variables with large (greater than 2^53) `uint64` values are included on chain. In those cases, Lodestar may view _valid_ `AttesterSlashing` or `ProposerSlashing` as _invalid_, due to rounding errors in large `number` values. This causes a consensus split, where Lodestar nodes are forked away from the main network.\n\nSimilarly Lodestar may consider _invalid_ `ProposerSlashing` as _valid_, thus including in proposed blocks that will be considered invalid by the network.\n\n### Patches\n\nhttps://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977\n\n### Workarounds\n\nUse `BigInt` to represent `Slot` and `Epoch` values in `AttesterSlashing` and `ProposerSlashing` objects. `BigInt` is too slow to be used in all `Slot` and `Epoch` cases, so we will carefully use `BigInt` just where necessary for consensus.","status":"published","published":"2022-05-24T22:21:10Z","modified":"2023-11-08T04:09:11.059602Z","cvss":[{"version":"3.1","score":7.5,"vector":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N","level":"high"}],"cwes":["CWE-190"],"updated_at":"2026-11-02T15:46:45.639885Z"}]}}