LiveActive security incident?Get immediate response
CVE Record

CVE-2022-31172: OpenZeppelin Contracts's SignatureChecker may revert on invalid EIP-1271 signers

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for smart contract development. Versions 4.1.0 until 4.7.1 are vulnerable to the SignatureChecker reverting. `SignatureChecker.isValidSignatureNow` is not expected to revert. However, an incorrect assumption about Solidity 0.8's `abi.decode` allows some cases to revert, given a target contract that doesn't implement EIP-1271 as expected. The contracts that may be affected are those that use `SignatureChecker` to check the validity of a signature and handle invalid signatures in a way other than reverting. The issue was patched in version 4.7.1.

HighCVSS 7.5Not KEV-listedUpdated
Glexia's TakeAutomated analysishigh

Security readout for executives and security teams

Plain-English summary

A helper used by some smart contracts to check signatures could fail unexpectedly instead of returning “invalid.” If business logic depends on that non-reverting behavior, affected contracts may make the wrong decision or halt a flow. This is mainly relevant to teams using OpenZeppelin Contracts SignatureChecker in affected versions.

Executive priority

Treat as high priority for Web3 products where signature validation gates value movement, permissions, or account actions. Not every OpenZeppelin user is exposed; urgency depends on actual SignatureChecker use and upgradeability.

Technical view

OpenZeppelin Contracts versions >=4.1.0 and <4.7.1 have a SignatureChecker.isValidSignatureNow issue involving invalid or nonconforming EIP-1271 signer contracts. An abi.decode assumption can cause a revert where callers expect false. Impact depends on downstream logic that treats invalid signatures differently from reverted checks.

Likely exposure

Exposure is limited to smart contracts using OpenZeppelin Contracts SignatureChecker from >=4.1.0 and <4.7.1, especially where invalid signatures are intentionally handled without reverting.

Exploitation context

The bundle does not show CISA KEV listing or cited evidence of active exploitation. Abuse would depend on reachable contract logic that accepts an unexpected revert as a meaningful state change or failure mode.

Researcher notes

The key condition is not just dependency version, but caller semantics around invalid signatures. Focus review on EIP-1271 contract-signature validation, revert handling, and paths where false versus revert changes authorization or state behavior.

Mitigation direction

  • Upgrade OpenZeppelin Contracts to 4.7.1 or later.
  • Review SignatureChecker.isValidSignatureNow call sites for non-reverting invalid-signature assumptions.
  • Assess upgrade, redeploy, or proxy-governance paths for already deployed contracts.
  • Check OpenZeppelin advisory and PR 3552 for vendor-specific fix context.

Validation and detection

  • Inventory package versions used at build time and in deployed contract source metadata.
  • Search contracts for SignatureChecker.isValidSignatureNow usage.
  • Test invalid EIP-1271 signer behavior against expected false-return paths.
  • Confirm patched library behavior in unit or fork tests before deployment.
Prepared
Confidence
high
Sources
4

Generated from the cited source records. This long-tail analysis has not been individually reviewed by a named human.

Potential ATT&CK relevance

Conservative CVE-to-ATT&CK context

These mappings and lookup hints may be relevant to the vulnerability behavior, CWE, affected product, or exposure path. Glexia-inferred context is not an official MITRE, ATT&CK, CWE, or CVE Program mapping.

ATT&CK lookup starting points

Use these exact CWE pages and searches to review the Glexia ATT&CK library from this CVE's weakness and description context.

cwe · low confidence lookup

CWE-20: Exact CWE lookup

Use the exact CWE identifier as the starting point before reviewing related ATT&CK behavior. Open the exact CWE lookup page first, then review the ATT&CK searches from that MITRE weakness context. This is a Glexia lookup hint, not an official ATT&CK mapping.

Open ATT&CK lookup
cve · low confidence lookup

CVE-2022-31172 mapping review

Open the CVE-to-ATT&CK bridge for reviewed, inferred, or future official mappings tied to this CVE.

Open ATT&CK lookup
Vulnerability profileCVE Program record
Severity
High
CVSS
7.5 (3.1)
Known Exploited
No
Published

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Official CVE source material

CNA and ADP enrichment extracted from CVE v5

These fields come from the CVE record and ADP containers, not from Glexia's Take. They preserve time-varying source decisions such as CISA SSVC, KEV status, CVSS metrics, and provider references.

1CVSS vectors
0Timeline events
0ADP providers
3Source links

CVSS vector scores

1 official score

We collect every scored CVSS vector available in the official CNA and ADP containers. When more than one version is present, the table keeps the source vectors side by side instead of collapsing them into the highest score.

ScoreVersionSeverityVectorExploitImpactSource
7.5CVSS 3.1HighCVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N3.93.6Primary CVE score

Vulnerability scoring details

Base CVSS 3.1 score

7.5High
CVSS 3.1 vector shape for CVE-2022-31172Attack VectorAttack ComplexityPrivileges RequiredUser InteractionScopeConfidentiality ImpactIntegrity ImpactAvailability Impact

Vector: CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N

Attack Vector
NetworkAdjacentLocalPhysical
Attack Complexity
LowHigh
Privileges Required
NoneLowHigh
User Interaction
NoneRequired
Scope
ChangedUnchanged
Confidentiality Impact
HighLowNone
Integrity Impact
HighLowNone
Availability Impact
HighLowNone
Affected products

Products and packages named in the record

VendorProductVersion / packageStatus
OpenZeppelinopenzeppelin-contracts>= 4.1.0, < 4.7.1Listed
Weakness

CWE details

CWE links open Glexia weakness intelligence pages with official CWE context, developer remediation guidance, and related CVE mappings.

CWE-20 · source CWE mapping

Improper Input Validation

Improper Input Validation represents a recurring weakness pattern that can create exploitable paths when design, validation, or implementation controls are missing.