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

Require with not comprehensive message #11

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

Require with not comprehensive message #11

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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) resolved Finding has been patched by sponsor (sponsor pls link to PR containing fix) 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

robee

Vulnerability details

The following requires has a non comprehensive messages.
This is very important to add a comprehensive message for any require. Such that the user has enough
information to know the reason of failure:

    Solidity file: XDEFIDistribution.sol, In line 227 with Require message: NO_TOKEN
    Solidity file: XDEFIDistribution.sol, In line 232 with Require message: NO_TOKEN
@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
robee issue #11
c9c9150
@deluca-mike deluca-mike added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label Jan 5, 2022
@deluca-mike
Copy link
Collaborator

Agreed. These messages lack comprehensiveness. This is no-risk/informational, though. In any case, we are going to move to custom error messages now.

@deluca-mike deluca-mike added the disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) label Jan 5, 2022
@deluca-mike
Copy link
Collaborator

deluca-mike commented Jan 13, 2022 •
edited
Loading

Fixed in scoreOf and tokenURI with a TokenDoesNotExist() custom error message.

@deluca-mike deluca-mike added the resolved Finding has been patched by sponsor (sponsor pls link to PR containing fix) label Jan 14, 2022
@Ivshti Ivshti 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 16, 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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) resolved Finding has been patched by sponsor (sponsor pls link to PR containing fix) 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
@Ivshti @deluca-mike @code423n4