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

Some functions calls native payable.transfer, which can be unusable for smart contract calls #147

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-L24

Vulnerability details

Impact

The refundAddress is unchanged in the DepositReceiver contract with a fixed address.
In the ReceiverImplementation contract, receiveAndSendToken/receiveAndSendNative/receiveAndUnwrapNative functions call native payable.transfer on the refundAddress. This is unsafe as transfer has hard coded gas budget and can fail when the refundAddress is a smart contract.
Whenever the refundAddress either fails to implement the payable fallback function or cumulative gas cost of the function sequence invoked on a native token transfer exceeds 2300 gas consumption limit the native tokens sent end up undelivered and the corresponding user funds return functionality will fail each time.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L23-L24
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L51-L52
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L71-L72

Tools Used

None

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Using low-level call.value(amount) with the corresponding result check or using the OpenZeppelin Address.sendValue is advised:
https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts/blob/master/contracts/utils/Address.sol#L60

@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 23, 2022
@re1ro re1ro added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Aug 23, 2022
@re1ro re1ro closed this as completed Aug 23, 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