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

Lack of event emission after sensitive action #49

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Aug 4, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

Lack of event emission after sensitive action #49

code423n4 opened this issue Aug 4, 2022 · 0 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") valid

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/main/contracts/HomeFi.sol#L92
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/main/contracts/HomeFi.sol#L113

Vulnerability details

Impact

The initialize function of the HomeFi contract does not emit the AdminReplaced event after setting the value of the _msgSender() to be the admin.

Consider emitting events after sensitive changes occur to facilitate tracking and notify off-chain clients following the contracts’ activity.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/main/contracts/HomeFi.sol#L92
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/main/contracts/HomeFi.sol#L113

Tools Used

vscode

Recommended Mitigation Steps

add event
@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 4, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 4, 2022
@code423n4
8olidity issue #49
ee33443
@zgorizzo69 zgorizzo69 added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") labels Aug 10, 2022
@jack-the-pug jack-the-pug added QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax valid and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Aug 27, 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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") valid
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@zgorizzo69 @code423n4 @jack-the-pug