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
#1 Cetus Incident: One Unchecked Shift Drains $223M in the Largest DeFi Hack of 2025

#1 Cetus Incident: One Unchecked Shift Drains $223M in the Largest DeFi Hack of 2025

Cetus Protocol, the largest concentrated-liquidity DEX on Sui, was exploited on May 22, 2025, resulting in an estimated ~$223M loss across multiple liquidity pools. The attacker leveraged a flaw in checked_shlw(), a custom overflow-prevention helper used in fixed-point u256 math, where an incorrect constant and comparison failed to block unsafe left shifts and caused silent truncation of high bits during liquidity delta calculations. By crafting specific liquidity and tick/price-range parameters, the exploit made required deposits appear near-zero while minting an oversized liquidity position, which was later withdrawn to drain real pool reserves.

#2 Bybit Incident: A Web2 Breach Enables the Largest Crypto Hack in History

#2 Bybit Incident: A Web2 Breach Enables the Largest Crypto Hack in History

The largest crypto hack ever, the February 21, 2025 Bybit breach stole about $1.5B after attackers used social engineering to compromise a Safe{Wallet} workflow, injected malicious JavaScript into an AWS S3 bucket, tampered with the transaction signing process, and upgraded Bybit’s Safe{Wallet} contract to a malicious implementation that drained funds across multiple chains.

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Jan 25 – Feb 1, 2026

Weekly Web3 Security Incident Roundup | Jan 25 – Feb 1, 2026

During the week of January 25 to February 1, 2026, six blockchain security incidents were reported with total losses of ~$18.05M. These involved improper input validation, token design flaws, key compromises, and business logic errors across DeFi protocols on multiple chains. The primary causes included unchecked user inputs enabling arbitrary calls, flawed burn mechanisms allowing price manipulation, compromised developer tools, and missing solvency checks in lending functions.