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

No method to rescue stucked ether and tokens #171

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue May 14, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

No method to rescue stucked ether and tokens #171

code423n4 opened this issue May 14, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax 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-cally/blob/1849f9ee12434038aa80753266ce6a2f2b082c59/contracts/src/Cally.sol#0

Vulnerability details

Impact

The contract deals with ERC721, ERC20 and ether. It accepts them as collaterals. Anyone accidentally sending any tokens or ether into the contract have no way to rescue it.

Tools Used

Manual Analysis

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Create a skim() like function to withdraw stucked funds.
@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 #171
8656de9
@outdoteth outdoteth added the sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons label May 15, 2022
@outdoteth
Copy link
Collaborator

outdoteth commented May 15, 2022 •
edited
Loading

technically this is correct but we have no intention of fixing this as tracking the accounting for each token incurs a lot of additional gas. a skim method also introduces further centralisation. it also requires a user to actively make the mistake of sending tokens into the contract for no reason

@HardlyDifficult
Copy link
Collaborator

Grouping with the warden's QA report #172

@HardlyDifficult HardlyDifficult added duplicate This issue or pull request already exists QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels May 22, 2022
@HardlyDifficult HardlyDifficult mentioned this issue May 22, 2022
Open
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax 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
@HardlyDifficult @outdoteth @code423n4