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

Assets sent from MarginAccount to InsuranceFund will be locked forever #128

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Feb 23, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

Assets sent from MarginAccount to InsuranceFund will be locked forever #128

code423n4 opened this issue Feb 23, 2022 · 3 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 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

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-02-hubble/blob/ed1d885d5dbc2eae24e43c3ecbf291a0f5a52765/contracts/MarginAccount.sol#L377

Vulnerability details

Impact

Assets sent from MarginAccount to InsuranceFund will be locked forever

Proof of Concept

The insurance fund doesn't have a way to transfer non-vusd out of the contract.

Assets transferred to the InsuranceFund will be locked forever.

Mitigation

Have a way for governance to sweep tokens to swap them.
@code423n4 code423n4 added 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working labels Feb 23, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 23, 2022
@code423n4
0xliumin issue #128
527c543
@atvanguard atvanguard added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label Feb 24, 2022
@atvanguard
Copy link
Collaborator

Yes this a known issue and already on our roadmap.

This was referenced Feb 24, 2022
Closed
Closed
Closed
@moose-code
Copy link
Collaborator

The insurance fund contract is also upgradeable so its a fairly simple fix upgrade and to sweep the tokens out when the time comes - i.e. tokens won't be lost forever. Still would be better to have it in from the start to avoid this process. Considering moving to medium. Assessing other issues first, will circle back

@moose-code moose-code 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 Mar 9, 2022
@moose-code
Copy link
Collaborator

Moving to medium as contracts are upgradeable so the tokens can always be collected later. If the contract was non-upgradeable I would have left as high

@CloudEllie CloudEllie added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Mar 15, 2022
@CloudEllie CloudEllie reopened this Mar 24, 2022
@CloudEllie CloudEllie removed the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Mar 24, 2022
@sherlock-admin sherlock-admin mentioned this issue Jul 3, 2023
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 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
4 participants
@atvanguard @moose-code @code423n4 @CloudEllie