Skip to content
Heist/ feed
Back to feed
High

Integer Overflow in Lodestar

Type: advisorySources: OSV

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

Integer Overflow in Lodestar

core-osv · Original source

Published 24 May 2022, 14:15 UTC

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"
}