No way to liquidate a position that is underwater due to interests growing up over time

[c4-bot-8]

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-12-ethereumcreditguild/blob/2376d9af792584e3d15ec9c32578daa33bb56b43/src/loan/LendingTerm.sol#L653

Vulnerability details

Impact

In this protocol, a position can only be liquitated if the current term is offboarded or partial payment is overdue. This means that a position cannot be liquidated if it is underwater due to accumulated interests.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-12-ethereumcreditguild/blob/2376d9af792584e3d15ec9c32578daa33bb56b43/src/loan/LendingTerm.sol#L653

Tools Used

VSCode

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Allow liquidation for these types of positions.

Assessed type

Context

[0xSorryNotSorry]

The submission does not provide any demonstration of the issue, reasoning and code blocks.

[c4-pre-sort]

0xSorryNotSorry marked the issue as insufficient quality report

[c4-judge]

Trumpero marked the issue as unsatisfactory:
Insufficient quality

[RunSoul22]

Hi @Trumpero

I believe this issue is a duplicate of #1057

A malicious user can abuse this by not repaying his loan or by not adding collateral to his loan when interest accrues above maxDebtPerCollateralToken. There will be no way to do anything with such positions, the only possible solution would be to offboard a full term.

In the impact section, I have clearly stated that there are only two ways to liquidate a position:

In this protocol, a position can only be liquitated if the current term is offboarded or partial payment is overdue

And the following reasoning is straightforward, there is no way to liquidate a position that is underwater due to interests growing up over time:

This means that a position cannot be liquidated if it is underwater due to accumulated interests.

Although this report is shorter and of lower quality compared to others, I have identified the core issue. Therefore, I believe a partial credit of 25% would be more appropriate than considering it completely unsatisfactory.

[Trumpero]

@RunSoul22 I consider this issue invalid due to its lack of quality. This report has too low quality and unclear description, and it doesn't point out any case where maxDebtPerCollateral will be surpassed, to be a duplicate of #1057

[RunSoul22]

thanks. I will do better next time.