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 low-level call() #237

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 19, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Unchecked return value from low-level call() #237

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 19, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
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 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

JMukesh

Vulnerability details

Impact

The return value of the low-level call is not checked, so if the call fails, the Ether will be locked in the contract. If the low level is used to prevent blocking operations, consider logging failed calls.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-12-amun/blob/98f6e2ff91f5fcebc0489f5871183566feaec307/contracts/basket/contracts/singleJoinExit/EthSingleTokenJoinV2.sol#L26

Tools Used

manual review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

add condition to check return value
@code423n4 code423n4 added 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working labels Dec 19, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 19, 2021
@code423n4
JMukesh issue #237
70e7103
@loki-sama loki-sama added 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") labels Jan 4, 2022
@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

Nice find! I think this could be marked as medium as it leaks value from the protocol but it doesn't result in assets being lost directly. It requires _INTERMEDIATE_TOKEN to point to a contract which fails upon wrapping the ETH amount.

@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

So considering that _INTERMEDIATE_TOKEN must be improperly set, I will mark this as medium.

@0xleastwood 0xleastwood added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value and removed 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly labels Jan 18, 2022
@0xleastwood 0xleastwood mentioned this issue Jan 23, 2022
Closed
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
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 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
@loki-sama @0xleastwood @code423n4