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

Hardcoded constants are risky #174

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Sep 22, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

Hardcoded constants are risky #174

code423n4 opened this issue Sep 22, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Warden finding disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

0xRajeev

Vulnerability details

Impact

Hardcoded constants in code is risky for auditability/readability/maintainability. The Factory contract uses 2e17 as a threshold check for ownerSplit instead of using a contract constant as done in other places.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-09-defiProtocol/blob/52b74824c42acbcd64248f68c40128fe3a82caf6/contracts/contracts/Factory.sol#L56

Tools Used

Manual Analysis

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Create a contract constant and use that as done in other places.
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Warden finding labels Sep 22, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 22, 2021
@code423n4
0xRajeev issue #174
6f0cf86
@frank-beard frank-beard added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") labels Oct 19, 2021
@frank-beard
Copy link
Collaborator

not an exploit

@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

Agree with not having magic values, severity is non-critical

@GalloDaSballo GalloDaSballo added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Dec 12, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Warden finding disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@GalloDaSballo @code423n4 @frank-beard