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

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #619 [1675724566035] #693

Closed
c4-judge opened this issue Feb 6, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #619 [1675724566035] #693

c4-judge opened this issue Feb 6, 2023 · 5 comments
Labels
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the risk level of this issue duplicate-528 satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards withdrawn by judge Special case: this finding was auto-generated by a judge and is now withdrawn; it can be ignored

Comments

@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 6, 2023

Judge has assessed an item in Issue #619 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows:

The function `withdrawRemainingTokens can be changed in a safer way to handle the withdraw from the owner and the protocol fee as well. This prevent risks allocated with the protocol fees.
By the docs this function is called in two different scenarios, if a quest is full and receipt redeemers equals the max amount of total participants allowed in the quest - only withdrawFee is called. If a quest doesn't hit the max total participants, first the owner calls the function withdrawRemainingTokens to withdraw the remaining tokens and then the fee should be paid with the function withdrawFee.

Overall the best solution of this problem is that the function withdrawRemainingTokens, both does the withdrawing part to the owner and pays the fee to the protocol as well. This is considered the safest way:

First - if the receipt redeemers are below the totalParticipants, can withdraw the remaining tokens and pay the fee at the same time, second if the quest is full and receipt redemeers hits the total amount of people allowed, only the fee will be paid to the protocol and will skip the withdraw remaining rewards part.

function withdrawRemainingTokens(address to_) public override onlyOwner {
super.withdrawRemainingTokens(to_);

    if (receiptRedeemers() < totalParticipants) {

    uint unclaimedTokens = (receiptRedeemers() - redeemedTokens) * rewardAmountInWeiOrTokenId;
    uint256 nonClaimableTokens = IERC20(rewardToken).balanceOf(address(this)) - protocolFee() - unclaimedTokens;
    IERC20(rewardToken).safeTransfer(to_, nonClaimableTokens);

    IERC20(rewardToken).safeTransfer(protocolFeeRecipient, protocolFee());

    } else {

    IERC20(rewardToken).safeTransfer(protocolFeeRecipient, protocolFee());

    }
}
@c4-judge c4-judge added the 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly label Feb 6, 2023
c4-judge added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 6, 2023
@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Feb 6, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor Author

c4-judge commented Feb 6, 2023

kirk-baird marked the issue as duplicate of #42

@c4-judge c4-judge added 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 withdrawn by judge Special case: this finding was auto-generated by a judge and is now withdrawn; it can be ignored and removed 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly labels Feb 10, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor Author

This auto-generated issue was withdrawn by kirk-baird

@c4-judge c4-judge reopened this Feb 10, 2023
@c4-judge 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
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor Author

This previously downgraded issue has been upgraded by kirk-baird

@c4-judge c4-judge added the satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards label Feb 14, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor Author

kirk-baird marked the issue as satisfactory

@c4-judge 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
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor Author

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 downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue duplicate-528 satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards withdrawn by judge Special case: this finding was auto-generated by a judge and is now withdrawn; it can be ignored
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant