This repository has been archived by the owner on Oct 1, 2023. It is now read-only.
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 1
Ch_301 - Users could avoid the paying depositFee
#298
Labels
Duplicate
A valid issue that is a duplicate of an issue with `Has Duplicates` label
Escalation Resolved
This issue's escalations have been approved/rejected
High
A valid High severity issue
Reward
A payout will be made for this issue
Sponsor Confirmed
The sponsor acknowledged this issue is valid
Comments
github-actions
bot
added
Medium
A valid Medium severity issue
Has Duplicates
A valid issue with 1+ other issues describing the same vulnerability
labels
Apr 3, 2023
3xHarry
added
the
Duplicate
A valid issue that is a duplicate of an issue with `Has Duplicates` label
label
Apr 5, 2023
dup of #75 |
dmitriia
removed
the
Duplicate
A valid issue that is a duplicate of an issue with `Has Duplicates` label
label
Apr 9, 2023
Duplicate #75 |
dmitriia
added
Duplicate
A valid issue that is a duplicate of an issue with `Has Duplicates` label
and removed
Has Duplicates
A valid issue with 1+ other issues describing the same vulnerability
labels
Apr 9, 2023
sherlock-admin
added
Low/Info
A valid Low/Informational severity issue
Has Duplicates
A valid issue with 1+ other issues describing the same vulnerability
Non-Reward
This issue will not receive a payout
and removed
Medium
A valid Medium severity issue
Duplicate
A valid issue that is a duplicate of an issue with `Has Duplicates` label
labels
Apr 11, 2023
Escalate for 10 USDC This is a duplicate of #75 |
You've created a valid escalation for 10 USDC! To remove the escalation from consideration: Delete your comment. You may delete or edit your escalation comment anytime before the 48-hour escalation window closes. After that, the escalation becomes final. |
Escalation accepted Valid duplicate of #75 |
This issue's escalations have been accepted! Contestants' payouts and scores will be updated according to the changes made on this issue. |
sherlock-admin
added
Escalation Resolved
This issue's escalations have been approved/rejected
and removed
Escalated
This issue contains a pending escalation
labels
Apr 21, 2023
hrishibhat
added
Duplicate
A valid issue that is a duplicate of an issue with `Has Duplicates` label
and removed
Has Duplicates
A valid issue with 1+ other issues describing the same vulnerability
labels
Apr 21, 2023
hrishibhat
removed
Low/Info
A valid Low/Informational severity issue
Non-Reward
This issue will not receive a payout
labels
Apr 28, 2023
sherlock-admin
added
High
A valid High severity issue
Reward
A payout will be made for this issue
labels
Apr 28, 2023
Sign up for free
to subscribe to this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in.
Labels
Duplicate
A valid issue that is a duplicate of an issue with `Has Duplicates` label
Escalation Resolved
This issue's escalations have been approved/rejected
High
A valid High severity issue
Reward
A payout will be made for this issue
Sponsor Confirmed
The sponsor acknowledged this issue is valid
Ch_301
medium
Users could avoid the paying
depositFee
Summary
Vulnerability Detail
In case there is an epoch
epoch X
still during the deposit period. Users could avoid paying depositFee (in caserelayerFee
<depositFee
)Just by using the queue deposit and then relayers will invoke
mintDepositInQueue()
forepoch X
and the user will only payrelayerFee
Impact
Users could avoid the paying
depositFee
Code Snippet
Tool used
Manual Review
Recommendation
If there is an epoch still during the deposit period users should only use the direct deposit
Duplicate of #75
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: