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

erc721 safeTransferFrom may dos claimAuction #683

Closed
c4-submissions opened this issue Nov 9, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

erc721 safeTransferFrom may dos claimAuction #683

c4-submissions opened this issue Nov 9, 2023 · 5 comments
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-739 partial-50 Incomplete articulation of vulnerability; eligible for partial credit only (50%)

Comments

@c4-submissions
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-10-nextgen/blob/a6f2397b68ef2865374c1bf7629349f25e71a44d/smart-contracts/AuctionDemo.sol#L112

Vulnerability details

Impact

erc721 safeTransferFrom may dos claimAuction. It is unknown if the receiving address is contract or not and implements the onERC721Received function or not. If it is smart contract, it will dos the claim logic

Proof of Concept

claimAuction is to transfer nft to the auction winner. When participating in aution, it never check bidder is eoa or smart-contract.
If the winner is smart-contract and do not have _onERC721Received(), according to the erc721 safeTransferFrom logic, it will revert. The claim logic, not only contains the transfer logic, but also repay token to other bidder, will dos. I think it's a serious problem.

Tools Used

manual

Recommended Mitigation Steps

check bidder in participateToAuction, if the bidder is smart contract ,check it has _onERC721Received() or not

Assessed type

ERC721
@c4-submissions c4-submissions added 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working labels Nov 9, 2023
c4-submissions added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 9, 2023
@c4-submissions
twcctop issue #683
a6bd419
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

141345 marked the issue as duplicate of #486

@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 1, 2023

alex-ppg marked the issue as not a duplicate

@c4-judge c4-judge reopened this Dec 1, 2023
@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Dec 1, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 1, 2023

alex-ppg marked the issue as duplicate of #1759

@c4-judge c4-judge added duplicate-1759 duplicate-739 partial-50 Incomplete articulation of vulnerability; eligible for partial credit only (50%) and removed duplicate-1759 labels Dec 1, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 8, 2023

alex-ppg marked the issue as partial-50

@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 9, 2023

alex-ppg changed the severity to 2 (Med Risk)

@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 Dec 9, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
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-739 partial-50 Incomplete articulation of vulnerability; eligible for partial credit only (50%)
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@c4-judge @c4-pre-sort @c4-submissions