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

Missing validation of address argument could indefinitely lock RebalanceManager contracts #125

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 18, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

defsec

Vulnerability details

Impact

the rebalanceManager parameter are used for the onlyRebalanceManager modifier. In the state variable , proper check up should be done , other wise error in these state variable can lead to redeployment of contract. If the zero address is assigned to rebalanceManager parameter, that will fail all onlyRebalanceManager functions.

Proof of Concept

  1. Navigate to the following contract functions.

"https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-12-amun/blob/main/contracts/basket/contracts/callManagers/RebalanceManager.sol#L57"

"https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-12-amun/blob/main/contracts/basket/contracts/callManagers/RebalanceManagerV2.sol#L47"

"https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-12-amun/blob/main/contracts/basket/contracts/callManagers/RebalanceManagerV3.sol#L52"

  1. Adding zero address into the rebalanceManager leads to failure of onlyRebalanceManager only functions.

Tools Used

Code Review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Add proper zero address validation.

@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 18, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 18, 2021
@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

No direct security implications, so marking as non-critical.

@0xleastwood 0xleastwood added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Jan 23, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants