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

Event BasketLicenseProposed needs an idNumber #263

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

Event BasketLicenseProposed needs an idNumber #263

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

0xsanson

Vulnerability details

Impact

The function Factory.proposeBasketLicense at the end emits BasketLicenseProposed(msg.sender, tokenName) and returns the id of the proposal.
This id should also be written to the log, since it's needed by the proposer (for createBasket), and they may not see the return value of an external function.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-09-defiProtocol/blob/main/contracts/contracts/Factory.sol#L87-L90

Tools Used

editor

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Consider redefining the event to contain the id of the proposal.
@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
0xsanson issue #263
30f41cc
@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

As per the docs, non-critical as it related to off-chain monitoring

@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