Vulnerability Database

406,328

Total vulnerabilities in the database

GovernorCompatibilityBravo incorrect ABI encoding may lead to unexpected behavior — @openzeppelin / contracts

Impact

The GovernorCompatibilityBravo module may lead to the creation of governance proposals that execute function calls with incorrect arguments due to bad ABI encoding. This happens if the proposal is created using explicit function signatures, e.g. a proposal to invoke the function foo(uint256) is created as propose([target], [0], ["foo(uint256)"], ["0x00..01"]). If the function selector is provided as part of the encoded proposal data the issue is not present, e.g. the same proposal is created as propose([target], [0], ["0x2fbebd3800..01"]), where 2fbebd38 is the function selector.

We've assessed the instances of this contract found on chain, and did not find any occurrence of this bug in the past. Proposal creation through Tally or OpenZeppelin Defender is not affected. The core Governor contract on its own is not affected.

Patches

A fix is included in version v4.4.2 of @openzeppelin/contracts and @openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable.

Workarounds

Do not create proposals using explicit function signatures. Instead, use the propose function without the signatures argument, and create the proposal using the fully ABI-encoded function call including the function selector in the calldatas argument as explained above.

References

https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/issues/3099

Credits

This issue was identified and reported by @GeraldHost.

For more information

If you have any questions, comments, or need assistance regarding this advisory, email us at [email protected].

To submit security reports please use our bug bounty on Immunefi.

  • Published: Jan 13, 2022
  • Updated: Apr 14, 2023
  • GHSA: GHSA-m6w8-fq7v-ph4m
  • Severity: Medium
  • Exploit:
  • CISA KEV:

No technical information available.

No CWE or OWASP classifications available.

Is contracts exposed on your perimeter?

A vulnerability database tells you what is broken. Attack surface management tells you where it is running: it discovers your internet-facing assets and flags the ones affected by issues like this one.

What is attack surface management? →

Frequently Asked Questions

A security vulnerability is a weakness in software, hardware, or configuration that can be exploited to compromise confidentiality, integrity, or availability. Many vulnerabilities are tracked as CVEs (Common Vulnerabilities and Exposures), which provide a standardized identifier so teams can coordinate patching, mitigation, and risk assessment across tools and vendors.

CVSS (Common Vulnerability Scoring System) estimates technical severity, but it doesn't automatically equal business risk. Prioritize using context like internet exposure, affected asset criticality, known exploitation (proof-of-concept or in-the-wild), and whether compensating controls exist. A "Medium" CVSS on an exposed, production system can be more urgent than a "Critical" on an isolated, non-production host.

A vulnerability is the underlying weakness. An exploit is the method or code used to take advantage of it. A zero-day is a vulnerability that is unknown to the vendor or has no publicly available fix when attackers begin using it. In practice, risk increases sharply when exploitation becomes reliable or widespread.

Recurring findings usually come from incomplete Asset Discovery, inconsistent patch management, inherited images, and configuration drift. In modern environments, you also need to watch the software supply chain: dependencies, containers, build pipelines, and third-party services can reintroduce the same weakness even after you patch a single host. Unknown or unmanaged assets (often called Shadow IT) are a common reason the same issues resurface.

Use a simple, repeatable triage model: focus first on externally exposed assets, high-value systems (identity, VPN, email, production), vulnerabilities with known exploits, and issues that enable remote code execution or privilege escalation. Then enforce patch SLAs and track progress using consistent metrics so remediation is steady, not reactive.

SynScan combines attack surface monitoring and continuous security auditing to keep your inventory current, flag high-impact vulnerabilities early, and help you turn raw findings into a practical remediation plan.