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

The require condition is not correct in function removeOperator in NestedFactory.sol #89

Closed
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

fatima_naz

Vulnerability details

Impact

in function removeOperator in NestedFactory.sol
function removeOperator(bytes32 operator) external override onlyOwner {
uint256 i = 0;
while (operators[i] != operator) {
i++;
}
require(i > 0, "NestedFactory::removeOperator: Cant remove non-existent operator");
delete operators[i];
}

In the require condition i>0 but if the first element of operators i.e. operators[0] is equal to the operator the while loop will break just then. so i is 0 but require condition checks for i>0 so it will show that "NestedFactory::removeOperator: Cant remove non-existent operator" but actually the operator exist and it needs to be removed.

Proof of Concept

Tools Used

Recommended Mitigation Steps

change the condition in require as i>=0

@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 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

@alcueca alcueca 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 3, 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 Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants