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

admin can anytime change address to which withdrawal funds are sent. #177

Open
code423n4 opened this issue May 28, 2022 · 3 comments
Open

admin can anytime change address to which withdrawal funds are sent. #177

code423n4 opened this issue May 28, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working 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-rubicon/blob/8c312a63a91193c6a192a9aab44ff980fbfd7741/contracts/rubiconPools/BathHouse.sol#L327
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-rubicon/blob/8c312a63a91193c6a192a9aab44ff980fbfd7741/contracts/rubiconPools/BathToken.sol#L265

Vulnerability details

In the setFeeTo function in BathToken, admin can change the address to which the withdrawal fees are sent. There is no timelock or multisig involved in the process. Which makes it easy for a sneaky admin to steal the funds behind everyone's back.
@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 28, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue May 28, 2022
@code423n4
ElKu issue #177
b15defd
@bghughes bghughes added duplicate This issue or pull request already exists sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels Jun 3, 2022
@bghughes
Copy link
Collaborator

bghughes commented Jun 3, 2022

#43 #133 #344

@HickupHH3
Copy link
Collaborator

HickupHH3 commented Jun 21, 2022 •
edited
Loading

I don't see what the adverse impact of changing the fee recipient to is. Downgrading due to insufficient justification. Part of warden's QA report: #178

@HickupHH3 HickupHH3 added 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 Jun 21, 2022
@HickupHH3
Copy link
Collaborator

this is the warden's primary report since #178 is invalidated

@HickupHH3 HickupHH3 reopened this Jun 25, 2022
@HickupHH3 HickupHH3 removed the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Jun 25, 2022
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 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
@bghughes @code423n4 @HickupHH3