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

Royalty logic might result in DoS with certain marketplaces #635

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 30, 2023 · 3 comments
Open

Royalty logic might result in DoS with certain marketplaces #635

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 30, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue edited-by-warden grade-b Q-16 QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

code423n4 commented Jan 30, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Lines of code

https://github.com/rabbitholegg/quest-protocol/blob/8c4c1f71221570b14a0479c216583342bd652d8d/contracts/RabbitHoleReceipt.sol#L90
https://github.com/rabbitholegg/quest-protocol/blob/8c4c1f71221570b14a0479c216583342bd652d8d/contracts/RabbitHoleReceipt.sol#L71

Vulnerability details

Impact

The royalty fee logic can result in DoS which prevents NFTs to be sold on marketplaces

Proof of Concept

Currently, the RabbitHoleReceipt contract has two flaws within its royalty logic:

  1. royaltyFee can be set > 10_000
  2. royaltyRecipient can be set to address(0) [known-issue]

Both of these configurational freedoms can result in DoS with marketplace implementations because the desired fee amount cannot be transferred because it is either higher than the initial value or the recipient is 0x0.

Tools Used

VSCode

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Consider validating both variables accordingly.
@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 Jan 30, 2023
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 30, 2023
@code423n4
betweenETHlines issue #635
643d34f
@c4-judge c4-judge added downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Feb 6, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 6, 2023

kirk-baird changed the severity to QA (Quality Assurance)

@c4-sponsor
Copy link

waynehoover marked the issue as sponsor acknowledged

@c4-sponsor c4-sponsor added the sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons label Feb 7, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

kirk-baird marked the issue as grade-b

@C4-Staff C4-Staff added the Q-16 label Feb 24, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue edited-by-warden grade-b Q-16 QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax 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
4 participants
@code423n4 @c4-judge @c4-sponsor @C4-Staff