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

Token owner cannot claim rewardToken if they are not the original depositor #204

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 6, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Token owner cannot claim rewardToken if they are not the original depositor #204

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 6, 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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) 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

gzeon

Vulnerability details

Impact

The comment in https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-streaming/blob/56d81204a00fc949d29ddd277169690318b36821/Streaming/src/Locke.sol#L553 stated that:

Allows a receipt token holder (or original depositor in case of a sale) to claim their rewardTokens
but the reward is only tracked to the original depositor in both case, see
https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-streaming/blob/56d81204a00fc949d29ddd277169690318b36821/Streaming/src/Locke.sol#L558

        TokenStream storage ts = tokensNotYetStreamed[msg.sender];

Transferring the LockeERC20 token does not transfer the TokenStream state.
@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 Dec 6, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 6, 2021
@code423n4
gzeon issue #204
d50a9b9
@brockelmore
Copy link
Collaborator

bad comment 👍

@brockelmore brockelmore added sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) labels Dec 8, 2021
@0xean 0xean 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 Jan 16, 2022
@0xean
Copy link
Collaborator

0xean commented Jan 16, 2022

marking down to low per

1 — Low: Low: Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments.

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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) 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
@0xean @brockelmore @code423n4