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

Use of ecrecover is susceptible to signature malleability #117

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 5, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

Use of ecrecover is susceptible to signature malleability #117

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 5, 2021 · 0 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

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

defsec

Vulnerability details

Impact

The ecrecover function is used in permit() to recover the address from the signature. The built-in EVM precompile ecrecover is susceptible to signature malleability which could lead to replay attacks (references: https://swcregistry.io/docs/SWC-117, https://swcregistry.io/docs/SWC-121 and https://medium.com/cryptronics/signature-replay-vulnerabilities-in-smart-contracts-3b6f7596df57).

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-streaming/blob/main/Streaming/src/LockeERC20.sol#L156

Tools Used

None

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Consider using OpenZeppelin’s ECDSA library (which prevents this malleability) instead of the built-in function.

@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 Dec 5, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 5, 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
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant