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

Inaccurate log emitted at deleteNewIndex #50

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Oct 10, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Inaccurate log emitted at deleteNewIndex #50

code423n4 opened this issue Oct 10, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Warden finding sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

kenzo

Vulnerability details

The DeletedNewIndex log emits "publisher", but it might be the auction that called the function.
Note: the event is defined as:
event DeletedNewIndex(address _publisher);
So if you wanted to anyway emit just the publisher, this is not a bug.
However as this function call be called from both publisher and auction, I have a feeling you wanted to emit the msg.sender.

Impact

Inaccurate data supplied.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-09-defiProtocol/blob/52b74824c42acbcd64248f68c40128fe3a82caf6/contracts/contracts/Basket.sol#L208

Tools Used

Manual analysis

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Emit msg.sender instead of publisher.

@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Warden finding labels Oct 10, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2021
@itsmetechjay
Copy link
Collaborator

Warden apologizes for linking the code of the previous defiProtocol contest, however these lines are not changed in the new contest.

@frank-beard frank-beard added the sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons label Nov 6, 2021
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

Finding is valid, while issues with events are non-critical, because this is an issue with the written code, low severity is appropriate

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Warden finding sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants