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

Liquidity constructor doesn't check that addresses are unique #39

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

Liquidity constructor doesn't check that addresses are unique #39

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 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 Liquidity.sol the constructor takes in 2 addresses which are _convenience and _pair and sets them in the contracts storage. The constructor does not check if these two addresses are unique which leaves room for errors. They should not be able to be the same address.

Proof of Concept

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

Tools Used

Manual code review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Add this in the Liquidity.sol constructor: require(_convenience != _pair, "No duplicate addresses")
@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
jayjonah8 issue #39
1a5ca4f
@Mathepreneur Mathepreneur added sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons and removed sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels Jan 15, 2022
@Mathepreneur
Copy link
Collaborator

The contract is deployed by the convenience which will check this requirement.

@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 25, 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
@0xean @Mathepreneur @code423n4