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

NestedFactory cannot remove 0th operator from operators array #79

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Nov 16, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

NestedFactory cannot remove 0th operator from operators array #79

code423n4 opened this issue Nov 16, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

elprofesor

Vulnerability details

Impact

NestedFactory implements inappropriate validation preventing the removal of 0th index operator in operators array. This prevents the removal of any malicious or compromised operators which compromises could potentially break other functions within the NestedFactory contract.

Proof of Concept

Details listed above can be seen in the following:

require(i > 0, "NestedFactory::removeOperator: Cant remove non-existent operator"); // @audit - LOW: can't remove 0'th element operator
        delete operators[i]; 

click here for link to git repo

Recommended Mitigation Steps

An example of more accurate removal process can be seen below:

/// @inheritdoc INestedFactory
function removeOperator(bytes32 operator) external override onlyOwner {
    uint256 i = 0;
    for (uint index=0 ; index < operators.length ; index++) {
        if(operators[i] == operator) i = index
    }
    require(i > 0, "NestedFactory::removeOperator: Cant remove non-existent operator");
    delete operators[i];
}


@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 16, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 16, 2021
@maximebrugel maximebrugel added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Nov 16, 2021
@maximebrugel
Copy link
Collaborator

Duplicated : #58

@alcueca
Copy link
Collaborator

alcueca commented Dec 3, 2021

Using #220 instead

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 Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants