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

Naming #250

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

Naming #250

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 acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

goatbug

Vulnerability details

Impact

Line 58 Auction
bondTimestamp = block.number;

Setting a variable labelled as a timestamp to a block number, this is misleading and causing errors on the timelocks.

Timestamp != blocknumber

Proof of Concept

Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates the concept.

Tools Used

Recommended Mitigation Steps
@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
goatbug issue #250
ed5c9b0
@frank-beard frank-beard added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels Oct 19, 2021
@frank-beard
Copy link
Collaborator

not an exploit

@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

Agree with finding, the variable name can be improved
At the same time, this is not a vulnerability nor any mistake, as such this is a non-critical finding

@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 4, 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 acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

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