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

Reward can be vested even after endTime #126

Open
code423n4 opened this issue May 20, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Reward can be vested even after endTime #126

code423n4 opened this issue May 20, 2022 · 2 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 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 acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-aura/blob/main/contracts/AuraVestedEscrow.sol#L96

Vulnerability details

Impact

Reward vesting should end once endTime is reached, this is not done currently.

Proof of Concept

  1. Observe the fund function
  2. Observe that there is no check to disallow funding once endTime has been reached

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Add below check

require(block.timestamp<=endTime, "Reward vesting period over");
@code423n4 code423n4 added 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 labels May 20, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue May 20, 2022
@code423n4
csanuragjain issue #126
52dcaa6
@0xMaharishi 0xMaharishi added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels May 26, 2022
@0xMaharishi
Copy link

This report is kind of invalid, because there would be no utility in this.. it's specifically left open ended. With that being said, adding a check to ensure that funding is made BEFORE START TIME would be good

This should be a 0 or 1 at most

This was referenced May 29, 2022
Merged
Open
@0xMaharishi 0xMaharishi added the resolved Finding has been patched by sponsor (sponsor pls link to PR containing fix) label May 30, 2022
@dmvt
Copy link
Collaborator

dmvt commented Jun 23, 2022

As far as I can tell this is totally valid. Funding in this state would cause a loss of funds in that they would never go towards a reward.

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 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 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
@dmvt @code423n4 @0xMaharishi