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

anyone can create a vault by directly calling the factory #80

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Oct 27, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

anyone can create a vault by directly calling the factory #80

code423n4 opened this issue Oct 27, 2021 · 0 comments
Assignees
Labels
2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

jonah1005

Vulnerability details

Impact

MochiVaultFactory.sol#L26-L37
There's no permission control in the vaultFactory. Anyone can create a vault. The transaction would be reverted when the government tries to deploy such an asset.

As the protocol checks whether the vault is a valid vault by comparing the contract's address with the computed address, the protocol would recognize the random vault as a valid one.

I consider this is a medium-risk issue.

Proof of Concept

Here's a web3.py script to trigger the bug.

vault_factory.functions.deployVault(usdt.address).transact()
## this tx would be reverted
profile.functions.registerAssetByGov([usdt.address], [3]).transact()

Tools Used

None

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Recommend to add a check.

require(msg.sender == engine, "!engine");
@code423n4 code423n4 added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working labels Oct 27, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 27, 2021
@r2moon r2moon added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label Oct 27, 2021
@r2moon r2moon self-assigned this Nov 2, 2021
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 bug Something isn't working sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants