Vault does not conform to ERC4626.

[c4-bot-10]

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-04-panoptic/blob/833312ebd600665b577fbd9c03ffa0daf250ed24/contracts/CollateralTracker.sol#L392-L394
https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-04-panoptic/blob/833312ebd600665b577fbd9c03ffa0daf250ed24/contracts/CollateralTracker.sol#L444-L448

Vulnerability details

Impact

Vault does not conform to ERC4626 which may break external integrations.

Proof of Concept

The ERC4626 specification states that maxDeposit MUST return the maximum amount of assets deposit would allow to be deposited for receiver and not cause a revert, which MUST NOT be higher than the actual maximum that would be accepted.

Similarly, maxMint MUST return the maximum amount of shares mint would allow to be deposited to receiver and not cause a revert, which MUST NOT be higher than the actual maximum that would be accepted.

CollateralTracker.sol#L392-L394

    function maxDeposit(address) external pure returns (uint256 maxAssets) {
        return type(uint104).max;
    }

CollateralTracker.sol#L444-L448

    function maxMint(address) external view returns (uint256 maxShares) {
        unchecked {
            return (convertToShares(type(uint104).max) * DECIMALS) / (DECIMALS + COMMISSION_FEE);
        }
    }

The CollateralTracker contract is an ERC4626 vault. This means that maxDeposit and maxMint of the CollateralTracker Vault must conform to the maxDeposit and maxMint of ERC4626 vaults as stated in the ERC4626 specification. The vulnerability is similar to PoolTogether M-23 where the vault does not conform to ERC4626.

Tools Used

Manual review, ERC4626 Tokenized Vaults

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Replace the implementation of the vault's maxDeposit and maxMint functions to be ERC4626 compliant.

Assessed type

ERC4626

[c4-judge]

Picodes marked the issue as primary issue

[dyedm1]

This issue has no explanation of how the standard was actually contravened.

[c4-judge]

Picodes marked the issue as duplicate of #501

[c4-judge]

Picodes marked the issue as partial-25

[Picodes]

Giving partial credit as the explanation is very evasive.

[c4-judge]

Picodes changed the severity to QA (Quality Assurance)