Most recent entries from all

EUVD-2026-268895

fkie_cve-2026-26267

soroban-sdk is a Rust SDK for Soroban contracts. Prior to versions 22.0.10, 23.5.2, and 25.1.1, the `#[contractimpl]` macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls. `#[contractimpl]` generates code that uses `MyContract::value()` style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function. This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously: First, an `impl Trait for MyContract` block is defined with one or more functions, with `#[contractimpl]` applied. Second, an `impl MyContract` block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without `#[contractimpl]` applied. If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function. The problem is patched in `soroban-sdk-macros` versions 22.0.10, 23.5.2, and 25.1.1. The fix changes the generated call from `<Type>::func()` to `<Type as Trait>::func()` when processing trait implementations, ensuring Rust resolves to the trait associated function regardless of whether an inherent function with the same name exists. Users should upgrade to `soroban-sdk-macros` 22.0.10, 23.5.2, or 25.1.1 and recompile their contracts. If upgr…

GHSA-4chv-4c6w-w254 — The rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

Affected: crates.io: soroban-sdk-macros

### Impact

The `#[contractimpl]` macro contains a bug in how it wires up function calls.

In Rust, you can define functions on a type in two ways: - Directly on the type as an inherent function: ```rust impl MyContract { fn value() { ... } } ``` - Through a trait ```rust impl Trait for MyContract { fn value() { ... } } ```

These are two separate functions that happen to share the same name. Rust has rules for which one gets called. When you write `MyContract::value()`, Rust always picks the one defined directly on the type, not the trait version.

The bug is that `#[contractimpl]` generates code that uses `MyContract::value()` style calls even when it's processing the trait version. This means if an inherent function is also defined with the same name, the inherent function gets called instead of the trait function.

This means the Wasm-exported entry point silently calls the wrong function when two conditions are met simultaneously: 1. A `impl Trait for MyContract` block is defined with one or more functions, with `#[contractimpl]` applied. 2. A `impl MyContract` block is defined with one or more identically named functions, without `#[contractimpl]` applied.

If the trait version contains important security checks, such as verifying the caller is authorized, that the inherent version does not, those checks are bypassed. Anyone interacting with the contract through its public interface will call the wrong function.

For example:

```rust #[cont…