-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #206 [1676531414343] #704
Labels
2 (Med Risk)
Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value
duplicate-552
partial-50
Incomplete articulation of vulnerability; eligible for partial credit only (50%)
Comments
c4-judge
added
the
2 (Med Risk)
Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value
label
Feb 16, 2023
c4-judge
added a commit
that referenced
this issue
Feb 16, 2023
kirk-baird marked the issue as duplicate of #119 |
c4-judge
added
the
partial-50
Incomplete articulation of vulnerability; eligible for partial credit only (50%)
label
Feb 16, 2023
kirk-baird marked the issue as partial-50 |
c4-judge
removed
partial-50
Incomplete articulation of vulnerability; eligible for partial credit only (50%)
duplicate-119
labels
Feb 16, 2023
kirk-baird marked the issue as not a duplicate |
kirk-baird marked the issue as duplicate of #552 |
kirk-baird marked the issue as partial-50 |
c4-judge
added
the
partial-50
Incomplete articulation of vulnerability; eligible for partial credit only (50%)
label
Feb 16, 2023
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
duplicate-552
partial-50
Incomplete articulation of vulnerability; eligible for partial credit only (50%)
Judge has assessed an item in Issue #206 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows:
Issue 2: receipts are not burned upon claiming reward.
In my opinion, current system of just claiming some tokens to be "used" has some downsides:
in any claim check, users spend gas to iterate over these tokens too etc. there are two loops in only claim function that checks every token of user
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: