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

DDOS in BalLiquidityProvider #285

Open
code423n4 opened this issue May 25, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

DDOS in BalLiquidityProvider #285

code423n4 opened this issue May 25, 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/4989a2077546a5394e3650bf3c224669a0f7e690/contracts/BalLiquidityProvider.sol#L56
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-aura/blob/4989a2077546a5394e3650bf3c224669a0f7e690/contracts/BalLiquidityProvider.sol#L57

Vulnerability details

Impact

DDOS to liquidity providers in BalLiquidityProvider

Proof of Concept

An attacker can front-run liquidity providers by sending 1 Wei of the asset to make the balance not equal to the input. This can be repeated and be used to impede the liquidity provider from using the function which will always revert since bal != _request.maxAmountsIn[i]

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Balances shouldn't be required to be equal to an input variable. An attacker can always make the balance a little bigger. This check should be removed or changed to require (bal >= _request.maxAmountsIn[i]).
@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 25, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue May 25, 2022
@code423n4
QuantumBrief issue #285
67fc070
@0xMaharishi
Copy link

Fair report 👍

@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 28, 2022
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
@0xMaharishi
Copy link

code-423n4/2022-05-aura#6

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
2 participants
@code423n4 @0xMaharishi