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.

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

Use of Solidity's transfer() function might render ETH impossible to withdraw #134

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Aug 3, 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

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L23
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L51
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L71
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L86
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/gas-service/AxelarGasService.sol#L128
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/gas-service/AxelarGasService.sol#L144

Vulnerability details

Impact

Using Solidity's transfer function has some notable shortcomings when the caller is a smart contract, which can render registers via ETH impossible. Specifically, the transfer will inevitably fail when:

  • The caller smart contract does not implement a payable fallback function.
  • The caller smart contract implements a payable fallback function which uses more than 2300 gas units.
  • The caller smart contract implements a payable fallback function which needs less than 2300 gas units but is called through a proxy that raises the call’s gas usage above 2300.

The sendValue function available in OpenZeppelin Contract’s Address library can be used to transfer the withdrawn Ether without being limited to 2300 gas units. Risks of reentrancy stemming from the use of this function can be mitigated by tightly following the "Check-effects-interactions" pattern and using OpenZeppelin Contract’s ReentrancyGuard contract. For further reference on why using Solidity’s transfer is no longer recommended, refer to these articles:

Proof of Concept

deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol:

L23 - refundAddress.transfer(address(this).balance);
L51 - refundAddress.transfer(address(this).balance);
L71 - refundAddress.transfer(address(this).balance);
L86 - recipient.transfer(amount);

gas-service/AxelarGasService.sol:

L128 - receiver.transfer(amount);
L144 - receiver.transfer(amount);

Tools Used

Manual review

Recommended mitigation steps

Use Solidity's low-level call() function or the sendValue function available in OpenZeppelin Contract’s Address library to send Ether.

@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 Aug 3, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 3, 2022
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

See #203

@re1ro
Copy link
Member

re1ro commented Aug 5, 2022

Duplicate of #4

@re1ro re1ro marked this as a duplicate of #4 Aug 22, 2022
@re1ro re1ro added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Aug 22, 2022
@re1ro re1ro closed this as completed Aug 22, 2022
@GalloDaSballo GalloDaSballo 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 Aug 28, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
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
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants