A Short Analysis of the Wild Exploitation of CVE-2021–39137

A Short Analysis of the Wild Exploitation of CVE-2021–39137

CVE-2021-39137 is a vulnerability which has been reported and fixed a few days ago. However, not all Ethereum nodes have applied the patch. We observe this vulnerability has been exploited by a malicious transaction.

Attack Transaction

https://tx.blocksecteam.com/tx/0x1cb6fb36633d270edefc04d048145b4298e67b8aa82a9e5ec4aa1435dd770ce4

This transaction has a STATICCALL with the address 0x4. This is a pre-compiled smart contract dataCopy. The argument is as follows.

inOffset = 0, inSize = 32, retOffset = 7 and retSize = 32.

The 0x4 smart contract

Figure 1

Since the target of the STATICCALL is the 0x4 pre-compiled contract, it will execute the RunPrecompiledContract function in Figure 1.

Figure 2

Figure 3

According to Figure 2/3, the 0x4 smart contract is simply returning the reference of the in pointer.

Figure 4

Figure 5

Figure 4 is the code for the opcode STATICCALL. In line 751, args points to [inOffset ~ inOffset + inSize ] of the EVM memory, which is Mem[0:32].

According to Figure 5 and the analysis of the code logic of 0x04 (Figure 2/3), the return value (ret) is a reference to the same memory as args. That is to say, it also points to Mem[0:32].

Vulnerability

In the vulnerable code (version 1.10.7), line 762 copies the content of ret to Mem[retOffset : retOffset + retOffset], i.e., copy Mem[0:32] to Mem [7:7+32]. This operation accidentally changes the content of ret. This means the return value of the 0x4 pre-compiled contract has been modified.

In the fixed version (1.10.8), it makes a copy of ret (line 766). This can fix the vulnerability since the copy in line 767 cannot modify the content of ret.

The CVE-2021–39137 vulnerability was exploited by a malicious transaction due to nodes not updating their patches in time. This flaw involved a defect in the Ethereum Virtual Machine's memory operations but has been fixed in version 1.10.8. To ensure system security, it is recommended that all Ethereum nodes update to the latest version immediately.

Credits

The attack is analyzed by Siwei Wu, Yufeng Hu, Lei Wu, Yajin Zhou@BlockSec

Sign up for the latest updates
Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Feb 9 – Feb 15, 2026

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Feb 9 – Feb 15, 2026

During the week of February 9 to February 15, 2026, three blockchain security incidents were reported with total losses of ~$657K. All incidents occurred on the BNB Smart Chain and involved flawed business logic in DeFi token contracts. The primary causes included an unchecked balance withdrawal from an intermediary contract that allowed donation-based inflation of a liquidity addition targeted by a sandwich attack, a post-swap deflationary clawback that returned sold tokens to the caller while draining pool reserves to create a repeatable price-manipulation primitive, and a token transfer override that burned tokens directly from a Uniswap V2 pair's balance and force-synced reserves within the same transaction to artificially inflate the token price.

Top 10 "Awesome" Security Incidents in 2025

Top 10 "Awesome" Security Incidents in 2025

To help the community learn from what happened, BlockSec selected ten incidents that stood out most this year. These cases were chosen not only for the scale of loss, but also for the distinct techniques involved, the unexpected twists in execution, and the new or underexplored attack surfaces they revealed.

#10 Panoptic Incident: XOR Linearity Breaks the Position Fingerprint Scheme

#10 Panoptic Incident: XOR Linearity Breaks the Position Fingerprint Scheme

On August 29, 2025, Panoptic disclosed a Cantina bounty finding and confirmed that, with support from Cantina and Seal911, it executed a rescue operation on August 25 to secure roughly $400K in funds. The issue stemmed from a flaw in Panoptic’s position fingerprint calculation algorithm, which could have enabled incorrect position identification and downstream fund risk.