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

callNoValue() function does not guard against zero address #7

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 14, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

callNoValue() function does not guard against zero address #7

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 14, 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 sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

jayjonah8

Vulnerability details

Impact

In CallFacet.sol, the callNoValue() function has a loop of addresses to call and it doesn't guard against one of the addresses possibly being a zero address. Adding this check can avoid mistakes and serve as a safeguard for the protocol.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-12-amun/blob/main/contracts/basket/contracts/facets/Call/CallFacet.sol#L95

Tools Used

Manual code review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

inside the loop in the callNoValue() function this should be added: require(_targets[i] != address(0));
@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 14, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 14, 2021
@code423n4
jayjonah8 issue #7
2fc3c5a
@hemulin hemulin added the sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons label Dec 21, 2021
@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

No security issue and only adds additional overhead to an already trusted call.

@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
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@hemulin @0xleastwood @code423n4