fix(protocol): fix an issue for ProverSet.proposeBlock

[davidtaikocha]

No description provided.

[openzeppelin-code]

fix(protocol): fix an issue for ProverSet.proposeBlock

Generated at commit: 31e73b9b66b8f885b48490f1df9b1b677b5ff500

🚨 Report Summary

	Severity Level	Results
Contracts	Critical High Medium Low Note Total	2 2 0 8 42 54
Dependencies	Critical High Medium Low Note Total	0 0 0 0 0 0

---

For more details view the full report in OpenZeppelin Code Inspector

[Brechtpd]

Don't we need this check because of this:

taiko-mono/packages/protocol/contracts/L1/libs/LibProposing.sol

Lines 184 to 186 in d3037ad

	if (params.hookCalls.length == 0) {
	if (params.assignedProver != msg.sender) revert L1_NOT_SAME_ADDRESS();
	_tko.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), _config.livenessBond);

So now anybody could propose a block through this contract, set no hooks and the assignedProver to the pool contract, and use the TAIKO in this contract as a bond for the proving no? And then the provers in this contract are forced to prove the block, which seems unwanted?

[davidtaikocha]

They still need an enabled prover to sign their blob at first?

[Brechtpd]

You mean this check:

taiko-mono/packages/protocol/contracts/L1/libs/LibProposing.sol

Line 138 in d3037ad

&& ECDSA.recover(meta_.blobHash, params.signature) != msg.sender

? This check is only done when no blob is used, so then still a problem when a blob is used I think.

hmmm also does ECDSA.recover even support contracts? Looking at https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/utils/cryptography/ECDSA.sol it doesn't seem to call isValidSignature anywhere for contract addresses.

[davidtaikocha]

I think you are right, we may also need to whitelist the proposer addresses in proverSet @dantaik