-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 2
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
Admins may withdraw funds dedicated to previously minted receipts #55
Labels
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
downgraded by judge
Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue
duplicate-528
satisfactory
satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards
Comments
code423n4
added
3 (High Risk)
Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly
bug
Something isn't working
labels
Jan 26, 2023
kirk-baird marked the issue as duplicate of #42 |
c4-judge
added
downgraded by judge
Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue
and removed
3 (High Risk)
Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly
labels
Feb 10, 2023
kirk-baird changed the severity to QA (Quality Assurance) |
c4-judge
added
the
QA (Quality Assurance)
Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax
label
Feb 10, 2023
c4-judge
added
3 (High Risk)
Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly
and removed
downgraded by judge
Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue
QA (Quality Assurance)
Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax
labels
Feb 10, 2023
This previously downgraded issue has been upgraded by kirk-baird |
kirk-baird marked the issue as satisfactory |
c4-judge
added
the
satisfactory
satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards
label
Feb 14, 2023
c4-judge
added
2 (Med Risk)
Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value
downgraded by judge
Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue
and removed
3 (High Risk)
Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly
labels
Feb 23, 2023
kirk-baird changed the severity to 2 (Med Risk) |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Labels
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
downgraded by judge
Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue
duplicate-528
satisfactory
satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards
Lines of code
https://github.com/rabbitholegg/quest-protocol/blob/8c4c1f71221570b14a0479c216583342bd652d8d/contracts/Erc1155Quest.sol#L54-L63
Vulnerability details
Impact
Admins may withdraw tokens from quests even though there are remaining unclaimed receipts. This leads to a loss of funds for the receipt holders.
Proof of Concept
In Erc20Quest, there are checks that ensure that even on admin withdrawal, sufficient funds remain to cover already-minted but yet-unclaimed receipts: https://github.com/rabbitholegg/quest-protocol/blob/8c4c1f71221570b14a0479c216583342bd652d8d/contracts/Erc20Quest.sol#L78-L87
However, in Erc1155Quest there are no such checks: https://github.com/rabbitholegg/quest-protocol/blob/8c4c1f71221570b14a0479c216583342bd652d8d/contracts/Erc1155Quest.sol#L54-L63
For Erc1155Quests, admin withdrawal will cause loss of funds for holders of minted but unclaimed receipts. This seems to be an error as there are checks in Erc20Quest that guard against this.
Tools Used
Manual review.
Recommended Mitigation Steps
Change the admin withdrawal amount in Erc1155Quest such on withdrawal, (protocolFees + unclaimedTokenRewards) num of rewardTokens are left behind for currently minted but unclaimed receipts.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: