{"url":"http://public2.vulnerablecode.io/api/packages/584677?format=json","purl":"pkg:npm/%40chainsafe/lodestar-cli@0.34.0-dev.18","type":"npm","namespace":"@chainsafe","name":"lodestar-cli","version":"0.34.0-dev.18","qualifiers":{},"subpath":"","is_vulnerable":true,"next_non_vulnerable_version":"0.36.0","latest_non_vulnerable_version":"0.36.0","affected_by_vulnerabilities":[{"url":"http://public2.vulnerablecode.io/api/vulnerabilities/112398?format=json","vulnerability_id":"VCID-x77g-y3rq-ckeq","summary":"AttesterSlashing number overflow\n### 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.","references":[{"reference_url":"https://api.first.org/data/v1/epss?cve=CVE-2022-29219","reference_id":"","reference_type":"","scores":[{"value":"0.0042","scoring_system":"epss","scoring_elements":"0.6228","published_at":"2026-06-05T12:55:00Z"},{"value":"0.0042","scoring_system":"epss","scoring_elements":"0.6226","published_at":"2026-06-08T12:55:00Z"},{"value":"0.0042","scoring_system":"epss","scoring_elements":"0.62276","published_at":"2026-06-09T12:55:00Z"},{"value":"0.0042","scoring_system":"epss","scoring_elements":"0.62287","published_at":"2026-06-06T12:55:00Z"},{"value":"0.0042","scoring_system":"epss","scoring_elements":"0.62231","published_at":"2026-06-04T12:55:00Z"}],"url":"https://api.first.org/data/v1/epss?cve=CVE-2022-29219"},{"reference_url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar","reference_id":"","reference_type":"","scores":[{"value":"7.5","scoring_system":"cvssv3.1","scoring_elements":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N"},{"value":"HIGH","scoring_system":"generic_textual","scoring_elements":""}],"url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar"},{"reference_url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977","reference_id":"","reference_type":"","scores":[{"value":"7.5","scoring_system":"cvssv3.1","scoring_elements":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N"},{"value":"HIGH","scoring_system":"generic_textual","scoring_elements":""}],"url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/pull/3977"},{"reference_url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0","reference_id":"","reference_type":"","scores":[{"value":"7.5","scoring_system":"cvssv3.1","scoring_elements":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N"},{"value":"HIGH","scoring_system":"generic_textual","scoring_elements":""}],"url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/releases/tag/v0.36.0"},{"reference_url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9","reference_id":"","reference_type":"","scores":[{"value":"7.5","scoring_system":"cvssv3.1","scoring_elements":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N"},{"value":"HIGH","scoring_system":"cvssv3.1_qr","scoring_elements":""},{"value":"HIGH","scoring_system":"generic_textual","scoring_elements":""}],"url":"https://github.com/ChainSafe/lodestar/security/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"},{"reference_url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29219","reference_id":"","reference_type":"","scores":[{"value":"7.5","scoring_system":"cvssv3.1","scoring_elements":"CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N"},{"value":"HIGH","scoring_system":"generic_textual","scoring_elements":""}],"url":"https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/detail/CVE-2022-29219"},{"reference_url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9","reference_id":"GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9","reference_type":"","scores":[{"value":"HIGH","scoring_system":"cvssv3.1_qr","scoring_elements":""}],"url":"https://github.com/advisories/GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"}],"fixed_packages":[{"url":"http://public2.vulnerablecode.io/api/packages/503614?format=json","purl":"pkg:npm/%40chainsafe/lodestar-cli@0.36.0","is_vulnerable":false,"affected_by_vulnerabilities":[],"resource_url":"http://public2.vulnerablecode.io/packages/pkg:npm/%2540chainsafe/lodestar-cli@0.36.0"}],"aliases":["CVE-2022-29219","GHSA-cvj7-5f3c-9vg9"],"risk_score":4.0,"exploitability":"0.5","weighted_severity":"8.0","resource_url":"http://public2.vulnerablecode.io/vulnerabilities/VCID-x77g-y3rq-ckeq"}],"fixing_vulnerabilities":[],"risk_score":"4.0","resource_url":"http://public2.vulnerablecode.io/packages/pkg:npm/%2540chainsafe/lodestar-cli@0.34.0-dev.18"}