Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

Permissions.sol#_swapRole is named wrongly #290

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 1, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Permissions.sol#_swapRole is named wrongly #290

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 1, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

0x0x0x

Vulnerability details

Concept

This function is used intensively to transfer roles. Swap role is a misleading naming for this function. It is transferring a role rather than swapping. I recommend changing the name to _transferRole to avoid creating any confusion.
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working labels Dec 1, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 1, 2021
@code423n4
0x0x0x issue #290
3dcd155
@0xScotch 0xScotch added the disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) label Dec 4, 2021
@0xScotch
Copy link
Collaborator

0xScotch commented Dec 4, 2021

I think this is a 0 (non-critical) issue

@0xScotch 0xScotch added the sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons label Dec 8, 2021
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

Agree with both side, marking as valid, but non-critical

@GalloDaSballo GalloDaSballo added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Jan 25, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@GalloDaSballo @0xScotch @code423n4