CVE-2026-73645
CVE-2026-73645 — OpenZeppelin Confidential Contracts ERC7984ERC20Wrapper: once a wrapper is filled, subsequent wrap requests do not revert and result in loss of funds.
OpenZeppelin Confidential Contracts is an experimental library for developing applications on the Zama fhEVM. Prior to 0.3.1, the ERC7984 contract tracked confidential total supply with an euint64 value, and an overflowing internal _mint operation could fail silently. The wrap and onTransferReceived functions in contracts/token/ERC7984/extensions/ERC7984ERC20Wrapper.sol did not handle that failure, so a user could transfer the underlying token without receiving the corresponding confidential wrapped token. With the default rate(), the wrapper fills after approximately 18.4 trillion tokens, and subsequent wrapping requests can cause loss of funds. This issue is fixed in version 0.3.1.
Published Updated Sources: NVD, OpenZeppelin (CNA), GitHub, GitHub Security Advisory, SOCRadar CTI
Triage
Is it exploited, how likely is exploitation, what does it touch, and how severe do the scoring sources call it.
Exploitation
Exploit code
public exploit, none observed
EPSS
0%
ahead of 0% of scored CVEs
CVSS base
6.6
medium
Remediation
The vendor's own words where we have them.
Upgrade @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts to 0.3.1 or later (npm advisory GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw).
First 24 hours
Ordered from the record's own fields — exposure first, because you cannot patch what you have not found.
- Identify exposed assets running affected vendor/product/version combinations.
- Prioritize based on EPSS, PoC availability, and external exposure.
- Search available logs for exploit probes, errors, authentication anomalies, or suspicious child processes matching the vulnerability class.
Affected scope
Vendor, product and version as the advisories word them.
| Vendor | Product | Versions | Status |
|---|---|---|---|
| OpenZeppelin | openzeppelin-confidential-contracts | < 0.3.1 | Vulnerable |
| npm | @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts | <= 0.3.0 | Vulnerable |
Attack characteristics
The CVSS vector, decoded. It describes the attack, not your exposure to it.
Scope
X
Attack Complexity
Low
Attack Vector
Network
Privileges Req
None
User Interaction
None
Every base score collected
Sources score independently and disagree; each row says who scored it and under which version.
| Score | Version | Severity | Expl. | Impact | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 6.6 | CVSS 4.0 | medium | — | — | OpenZeppelin (CNA) |
CVSS:4.0/AV:N/AC:L/AT:N/PR:N/UI:N/VC:N/VI:H/VA:N/SC:N/SI:N/SA:N/E:U
What this weakness leads to
MITRE's own consequences and mitigations for the weakness class — the authority's wording, not guidance derived from the CVSS vector.
CWE-190 · Integer Overflow or Wraparound
- DoS: Crash, Exit, or Restart
- DoS: Resource Consumption (CPU)
- DoS: Resource Consumption (Memory)
- DoS: Instability
Mitigation: Ensure that all protocols are strictly defined, such that all out-of-bounds behavior can be identified simply, and require strict conformance to the protocol.
Weakness & attack patterns
- CWE-190
Attack patterns reported against this CVE. The ATT&CK techniques below are inferred from its weakness class.
Public exploit
Capability, not use: code existing is a different claim from anyone running it.
Repositories
1
Detection
Read off the CVSS vector and the weakness class. Starting points, not rules we have tested.
- Search application, proxy, and WAF logs for requests touching /token/ERC7984/extensions/ERC7984ERC20Wrapper.sol.
- Prioritize edge telemetry for network-reachable openzeppelin-confidential-contracts, @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts.
- Monitor for scanner or exploit-pattern traffic after 1 public PoC repositories were reported.
Timeline
What happened to this CVE, newest first — with the readings a source repeats on a schedule counted underneath rather than listed.
- 2026
Added · CVSS 3.1 6.6 (AV:N)
Aug 13, 2026 · NVD
Initial · CVE published
Aug 13, 2026 · NVD
Added · GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw published (medium)
Jan 5, 2026 · GitHub Security Advisory
Source activity
Readings a source repeats on a schedule, counted rather than listed.
- 2×ModifiedAug 13, 2026 · SOCRadar CTI
References
5 on the record
- github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-confidential-contracts/commit/c620d4386021dde63ae3ea1507dee8543791134a
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST, Mitre
- github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-confidential-contracts/pull/271
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST, Mitre
- github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-confidential-contracts/releases/tag/v0.3.1
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST, Mitre
- github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-confidential-contracts/security/advisories/GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw
Exploit, Third Party Advisory, NIST, Mitre
- github.com/advisories/GHSA-hqf9-8xv5-x8xw
Exploit, Third Party Advisory
Elsewhere on this site
- OpenZeppelinevery CVE for this vendor
- npmevery CVE for this vendor
- Remote Code Execsame class
- CWE-190other pages naming this weakness
Not in any source we poll
Listed rather than left blank: an empty field and an unmeasured one look identical on screen, and only one is a reason to look elsewhere.
- No confirmed IOCs, IP addresses, domains, file hashes, or malware artifacts supplied.
- No organization-specific asset inventory, compensating-control status, or patch deployment evidence supplied.
- No exploit packet captures, log samples, or incident case IDs supplied.
Answered from this record1
What should defenders know first?
CVE-2026-73645 is OpenZeppelin Confidential Contracts ERC7984ERC20Wrapper: once a wrapper is filled, subsequent wrap requests do not revert and result in loss of funds., a medium vulnerability affecting openzeppelin-confidential-contracts, @openzeppelin/confidential-contracts from OpenZeppelin, npm. The current evidence does not list it in CISA KEV, and the exploit status is: Active exploitation is not confirmed from current sources for CVE-2026-73645. Public exploit evidence is: 1 public PoC repositories reported; 0 marked weaponized in current dataset. The affected-version evidence is listed in the key facts and affected products tables. Defenders should first verify whether exposed or business-critical assets run those versions, then apply vendor patches or mitigations, restrict reachable attack surface, and preserve logs for detection review. CVSS 6.6 describes technical severity, while EPSS 0% helps estimate near-term exploit likelihood; neither replaces asset context. Unknown fields should remain explicit in tickets, and threat actor, IOC, victimology, or payload claims should not be added unless a cited source supports them. Monitor CISA KEV, vendor advisories, NVD changes, public PoC repositories, and internal telemetry for update triggers.