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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

ERC20 return values not checked #212

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Nov 10, 2021 · 1 comment
Closed

ERC20 return values not checked #212

code423n4 opened this issue Nov 10, 2021 · 1 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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

cmichel

Vulnerability details

The ERC20.transfer() and ERC20.transferFrom() functions return a boolean value indicating success. This parameter should checked for success.

Some functions perform ERC20 transfers without checking for the return value:

  • BasicSale._processWithdrawal
  • AirdropDistribution.claim
  • InvestorDistribution.dev_rugpull

Impact

As the trusted mainToken token is used which supposedly reverts on failed transfers, not checking the return value does not lead to any security issues.
We still recommend checking it to abide by the EIP20 standard.

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Consider using require(mainToken.transfer(_member, v_value), "transfer failed") instead.
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working labels Nov 10, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 10, 2021
@code423n4
cmichel issue #212
eeebe35
@chickenpie347
Copy link
Collaborator

Addressed in #31 .

@chickenpie347 chickenpie347 added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Nov 16, 2021
@0xean 0xean added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Jan 10, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@chickenpie347 @0xean @code423n4 @CloudEllie