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

use of msg.value >= premium instead of == in buyOption() #169

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue May 14, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed

use of msg.value >= premium instead of == in buyOption() #169

code423n4 opened this issue May 14, 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 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-423n4/2022-05-cally/blob/1849f9ee12434038aa80753266ce6a2f2b082c59/contracts/src/Cally.sol#L224

Vulnerability details

Impact

When eth greater than required premium is sent to buy the option, surplus eth is lossed by the sender.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-cally/blob/1849f9ee12434038aa80753266ce6a2f2b082c59/contracts/src/Cally.sol#L224

require(msg.value >= premium, "Incorrect ETH amount sent");

When a user accidently sends 2 eth instead of required premium of 0.2 eth, the surplus eth is lost to by the user with no methods of refund

Tools Used

Manual Analysis

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Use msg.value == premium
@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 14, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue May 14, 2022
@code423n4
0xf15ers issue #169
5375610
@outdoteth outdoteth added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label May 15, 2022
@outdoteth
Copy link
Collaborator

reference issue: #84

@outdoteth outdoteth added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label May 15, 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 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
2 participants
@outdoteth @code423n4