Skip to content
TrackCVE
  • Newest CVEsPage
  • Recently added to KEVPage
  • Rising exploitation (EPSS)Page
  • Weekly digestPage
  • StatisticsPage
  • WatchlistPage
  • API documentationPage
  • MCP serverPage
  • Data sourcesPage
  • ChangelogPage
  • AboutPage
  • How it's builtPage
Back

CVE-2026-26267

rs-soroban-sdk #[contractimpl] macro calls inherent function instead of trait function when names collide

High7.5EPSS 0.36%
Published
Updated
Reserved
Assigned by
GitHub_M

Description

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 upgrading is not immediately possible, contract developers can avoid the issue by ensuring that no inherent associated function on the contract type shares a name with any function in the trait implementation. Renaming or removing the conflicting inherent function eliminates the ambiguity and causes the macro-generated code to correctly resolve to the trait function.

Timeline

  1. ID reserved

    By GitHub_M

  2. · 7 days later

    Published

Changes after publication (a new score, a public exploit, EPSS crossing 1, 10 or 50 %, leaving KEV) are kept since November 2026; earlier ones are not known.

Scores

CVSS scores of CVE-2026-26267, by who scored it
Scored byCVSSScoreVector
GitHub_MCNA (assigner)3.1High7.5CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
NVDNVD · Analyzed3.1High7.5CVSS:3.1/AV:N/AC:L/PR:N/UI:N/S:U/C:N/I:H/A:N
EPSS (exploitation in 30 days)
0.36% · top 70% of all CVEs (7 Nov 2026)
CISA SSVC
Exploitation: none · Automatable: yes · Technical impact: partial
Loading the EPSS history…

The list uses the assigner's score when there is one, then CISA's, then NVD's: High 7.5.

Weakness

Affected products

Affected packages

From reviewed advisories of the GitHub Advisory Database.

References (5)

Sources

The same CVE in the primary databases and aggregators, to check against.

Badge for a README or a ticket

CVE-2026-26267 badge
[![CVE-2026-26267](https://trackcve.app/badge/CVE-2026-26267.svg)](https://trackcve.app/cve/CVE-2026-26267)

Record last updated .