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

Deprecated Function Usage #18

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Nov 25, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Deprecated Function Usage #18

code423n4 opened this issue Nov 25, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments 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

defsec

Vulnerability details

Impact

After pragma version, 0.7.0, the contract should use block.timestamp.

Proof of Concept

  1. Navigate to the following contract.

"https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-malt/blob/d3f6a57ba6694b47389b16d9d0a36a956c5e6a94/src/contracts/DexHandlers/UniswapHandler.sol#L153"

"https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-malt/blob/d3f6a57ba6694b47389b16d9d0a36a956c5e6a94/src/contracts/DexHandlers/UniswapHandler.sol#L178"

  1. Now is used instead of block.timestamp.

Tools Used

None

Recommended Mitigation Steps

It is recommended to use block.timestamp instead of now.
@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 25, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 25, 2021
@code423n4
defsec issue #18
381f392
@0xScotch 0xScotch added sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") and removed sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels Dec 8, 2021
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

Finding is valid in a vacuum, but sponsors code is 0.6.6. (see hardhat config).
We'll allow, but believe it's a nofix for the sponsor

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments 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
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@GalloDaSballo @0xScotch @code423n4