Integer Overflow in Lodestar
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.
- Products
- Not specified
- Affected versions
- Not specified
- Fixed versions
- Not specified
- CVEs
- CVE-2022-29219
- Confirmed fixed CVEs
- Not specified
- Updated in this feed
- 4 Nov 2026, 13:44 UTC · Revision 1
Source evidence
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.
osv:CVE-2022-29219
Complete source record
{
"id": "26b6f176c80ceb31dc1c633ad1a29ee2b3da73e72f302f18699b87e71ab085b5",
"url": "https://osv.dev/vulnerability/CVE-2022-29219",
"method": "structured",
"payload": {
"kind": "advisory",
"title": "Integer Overflow in Lodestar",
"summary": "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.",
"evidence": "osv:CVE-2022-29219",
"products": [],
"severity": "high",
"structured": {
"id": "CVE-2022-29219",
"aliases": [
"CVE-2022-29219",
"GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"
],
"metrics": [
{
"type": "CVSS_V3",
"score": "CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N"
}
],
"affected": [
{
"ranges": [
{
"repo": "https://github.com/chainsafe/lodestar",
"type": "GIT",
"events": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "28e2c74cf0f1bede8b09c8c9fec26f54b367e3fd"
}
],
"database_specific": {
"extracted_events": [
{
"range": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.36.0"
}
],
"source": "AFFECTED_FIELD",
"strategy": "StringRangeExpression"
},
{
"range": [
{
"fixed": "28e2c74cf0f1bede8b09c8c9fec26f54b367e3fd"
}
],
"source": "REFERENCES_TAG",
"original_tag": "v0.36.0"
},
{
"cpe": "cpe:2.3:a:chainsafe:lodestar:*:*:*:*:*:*:*:*",
"range": [
{
"introduced": "0"
},
{
"fixed": "0.36.0"
}
],
"source": "CPE_RANGE"
}
]
}
}
],
"versions": [
"v0.34.0-beta.0",
"v0.33.0-beta.0",
"v0.32.0",
"v0.31.0",
"v0.30.0",
"v0.29.3",
"v0.29.2",
"v0.29.1",
"v0.29.0",
"v0.28.1",
"v0.28.0",
"v0.27.0",
"v0.26.0",
"v0.25.1",
"v0.25.0",
"v0.24.3",
"v0.24.2",
"v0.24.1",
"v0.24.0",
"v0.23.0",
"v0.22.0",
"v0.21.0",
"v0.20.0",
"v0.19.0",
"v0.18.0",
"v0.17.0",
"v0.16.0",
"v0.15.0",
"v0.14.0",
"v0.13.0",
"v0.12.0",
"v0.11.0",
"v0.10.1",
"v0.10.0",
"v0.9.0",
"v0.8.0",
"v0.7.0",
"v0.6.0",
"v0.5.0"
],
"database_specific": {
"source": "https://storage.googleapis.com/cve-osv-conversion/osv-output/CVE-2022-29219.json"
}
}
],
"modified": "2026-10-28T02:30:35.858308850Z",
"provider": "osv",
"references": [
"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0",
"https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2022/29xxx/CVE-2022-29219.json",
"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9",
"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29219",
"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"
],
"provider_metadata": {
"cwe_ids": [
"CWE-190"
],
"cna_assigner": "GitHub_M",
"osv_generated_from": "https://github.com/CVEProject/cvelistV5/tree/main/cves/2022/29xxx/CVE-2022-29219.json"
}
},
"related_cves": [
{
"value": "CVE-2022-29219",
"evidence": "/id"
}
],
"security_relevant": true,
"severity_evidence": "/severity/0/score"
},
"source_id": "core-osv",
"document_id": 503251,
"published_at": "2022-05-24T14:15:14+00:00"
}