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

Improper Upper Bound Definition on the Fee #33

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 4, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Improper Upper Bound Definition on the Fee #33

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 4, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

defsec

Vulnerability details

Impact

The TimeswapFactory constructor does not have any upper or lower bounds. Values that are too large will lead to reversions in several critical functions.

Proof of Concept

  • The TimeswapFactory contract constructor has a parameter named as "_protocolFee". This parameter is designed as "_protocolFee The chosen protocol fee rate."
  • On the function there is no upper and lower bound defined. Therefore, users can pay higher fees.

URL

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-01-timeswap/blob/main/Timeswap/Timeswap-V1-Core/contracts/TimeswapFactory.sol#L41

Tools Used

None

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Consider to define upper and lower bounds on the contract constructor.
@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 Jan 4, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 4, 2022
@code423n4
defsec issue #33
0478437
@amateur-dev amateur-dev mentioned this issue Jan 15, 2022
Closed
@Mathepreneur Mathepreneur added the sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue label Jan 15, 2022
@Mathepreneur
Copy link
Collaborator

The upper bound is the actual uint16 value type.

@0xean
Copy link
Collaborator

0xean commented Jan 25, 2022

marking down to non-critical

@0xean 0xean 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 26, 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 disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@0xean @Mathepreneur @code423n4