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

BaseRewardPool4626 is not IERC4626 compliant #26

Open
code423n4 opened this issue May 13, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

BaseRewardPool4626 is not IERC4626 compliant #26

code423n4 opened this issue May 13, 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 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

Lines of code

https://github.com/aurafinance/convex-platform/blob/9cae5eb5a77e73bbc1378ef213740c1889e2e8a3/contracts/contracts/BaseRewardPool4626.sol

Vulnerability details

Impact

BaseRewardPool4626 is not IERC4626 compliant.
This makes the BaseRewardPool4626 contract irrelevant as it is for now since projects won't be able to integrate with BaseRewardPool4626 using theeip-4626 standard.

Suggestion

You can choose to remove the BaseRewardPool4626 and save on some deployment gas or review the necessary functions and emits required on eip-4626 and add it to BaseRewardPool4626.
@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 13, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue May 13, 2022
@code423n4
0xjuicer issue #26
5878e7d
@0xMaharishi 0xMaharishi added 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") labels May 25, 2022
@0xMaharishi
Copy link

Valid report

code-423n4/2022-05-aura#5

Resolved here ^

@0xMaharishi 0xMaharishi added the disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) label May 25, 2022
@0xMaharishi
Copy link

Probably should be severity 1 though.. no funds are ever at risk under any scenario

@0xMaharishi 0xMaharishi mentioned this issue May 26, 2022
Closed
@dmvt
Copy link
Collaborator

dmvt commented Jun 20, 2022

I agree with medium risk here

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 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
@dmvt @code423n4 @0xMaharishi