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.

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

Use safetransfer/safetransferFrom instead of transfer/transferFrom #301

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Sep 19, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed
Labels
2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working invalid This doesn't seem right sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-y2k-finance/blob/2175c044af98509261e4147edeb48e1036773771/src/Vault.sol#L190
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-y2k-finance/blob/2175c044af98509261e4147edeb48e1036773771/src/Vault.sol#L167
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-y2k-finance/blob/2175c044af98509261e4147edeb48e1036773771/src/Vault.sol#L228
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-y2k-finance/blob/2175c044af98509261e4147edeb48e1036773771/src/Vault.sol#L231

Vulnerability details

Impact

Its a good to add require() statement to checks the return value of token transfer or using safetransfer or safetransferFrom on Openzeppelin to ensure the token revert when transfer failure. Failure to do so will cause silent failures of transfer and affect token accountng in contract. parameter needs to be checked for success.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-y2k-finance/blob/2175c044af98509261e4147edeb48e1036773771/src/Vault.sol#L190

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-y2k-finance/blob/2175c044af98509261e4147edeb48e1036773771/src/Vault.sol#L167

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-y2k-finance/blob/2175c044af98509261e4147edeb48e1036773771/src/Vault.sol#L228

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-y2k-finance/blob/2175c044af98509261e4147edeb48e1036773771/src/Vault.sol#L231

Tools Used

Manual review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

all interactions should follow correct checks. so we suggest to using safetransfer/safetransferFrom in safeERC20 or checking the success boolean of all .transfer or .transferFrom call for unknown contract.

@code423n4 code423n4 added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working labels Sep 19, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 19, 2022
@MiguelBits MiguelBits added the invalid This doesn't seem right label Sep 30, 2022
@liveactionllama liveactionllama added sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue and removed invalid This doesn't seem right labels Oct 3, 2022
@HickupHH3
Copy link
Collaborator

dup #499

@HickupHH3 HickupHH3 added the unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards label Nov 5, 2022
@JeeberC4 JeeberC4 added the invalid This doesn't seem right label Nov 9, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working invalid This doesn't seem right sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

5 participants