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

Sensitive variables should not be able to be changed easily #80

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Oct 10, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Sensitive variables should not be able to be changed easily #80

code423n4 opened this issue Oct 10, 2021 · 1 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

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

tensors

Vulnerability details

As discussed in the previous issue, auctionMultiplier and auctionDecrment are very sensitive variables that can produce large changes in the ibRatio after a settleAuction. A factory change in these variables could affect ongoing and future auctions, causing

If developers accidentally incorrectly update these amounts during an auction it could cause problems (described in a previously submitted issue). If an attacker could somehow get access to these variables he can drain funds from on going auctions in a manner similar to the previously described attack (from a different issue, manipulating newRatio to be > ibRatio).

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-10-defiprotocol/blob/7ca848f2779e2e64ed0b4756c02f0137ecd73e50/contracts/contracts/Factory.sol#L43-L49

Recommendation:
Make these sensitive variables immutable, or at least make sure developers are aware the potential effects changes will have on the ibRatio's of auctions that are occuring.

@code423n4 code423n4 added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Warden finding labels Oct 10, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 10, 2021
@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 Oct 19, 2021
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

Finding is valid, in lack of a specific POC, I'm downgrading to low

@GalloDaSballo GalloDaSballo added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Dec 19, 2021
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

3 participants