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

unchecked return value from approve() #233

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 19, 2021 · 1 comment
Closed

unchecked return value from approve() #233

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 19, 2021 · 1 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

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

JMukesh

Vulnerability details

Impact

due to lack of check for the return value of approve() , function may silently fail

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-12-amun/blob/98f6e2ff91f5fcebc0489f5871183566feaec307/contracts/basket/contracts/singleJoinExit/SingleNativeTokenExitV2.sol#L55

Tools Used

manual review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

use safeApprove() from oz library
@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 19, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 19, 2021
@code423n4
JMukesh issue #233
99e0e1a
@loki-sama loki-sama added the disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) label Dec 30, 2021
@loki-sama
Copy link
Collaborator

loki-sama commented Dec 30, 2021 •
edited
Loading

duplicate #294

@loki-sama loki-sama added duplicate This issue or pull request already exists and removed disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) labels Jan 4, 2022
@ghost ghost closed this as completed Jan 10, 2022
@0xleastwood 0xleastwood 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 22, 2022
This issue was closed.
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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@loki-sama @0xleastwood @code423n4