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

QA Report #145

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jun 3, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed

QA Report #145

code423n4 opened this issue Jun 3, 2022 · 1 comment
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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists 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

Reinitalisation in BkdLocker.sol

In the initialize() function, the only check is made that the current startBoost value is zero, if zero is passed then this allows the function to be reinitialised and potentially modifying other variables which should remain constant.

Consider making a check that the passed value of startBoost is nonzero.
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-backd/blob/2a5664d35cde5b036074edef3c1369b984d10010/protocol/contracts/BkdLocker.sol#L59

Additionally, in initialize() no check is made that MAX_BOOST is larger than START_BOOST, if this is the case then calculation made here in computeNewBoost() will revert due to an arithmetic underflow preventing any further call which deals with claiming fees, staking or withdrawing tokens.

Make a check in the initialize() function to make sure that max boost is larger than start boost
@code423n4 code423n4 added bug Something isn't working QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax labels Jun 3, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 3, 2022
@code423n4
scaraven issue #145
95716ff
@chase-manning chase-manning added sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") resolved Finding has been patched by sponsor (sponsor pls link to PR containing fix) labels Jun 6, 2022
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

Dup of #136

@GalloDaSballo GalloDaSballo added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value and removed QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax labels Jun 22, 2022
@JeeberC4 JeeberC4 reopened this Jun 23, 2022
@JeeberC4 JeeberC4 added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Jun 23, 2022
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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists 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
4 participants
@GalloDaSballo @chase-manning @code423n4 @JeeberC4