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

Factory.proposeBasketLicense() and IFactory.proposeBasketLicense() accept arguments with different data locations #43

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Oct 9, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Factory.proposeBasketLicense() and IFactory.proposeBasketLicense() accept arguments with different data locations #43

code423n4 opened this issue Oct 9, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Warden finding 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

pants

Vulnerability details

The function Factory.proposeBasketLicense() claims to override IFactory.proposeBasketLicense(), but some of their arguments have different data locations.

Impact

Mismatching data locations in overrides have unexpected behavior.

Proof of Concept

ethereum/solidity#10900

Tool Used

Manual code review.

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Modify the data locations of the arguments to match between Factory.proposeBasketLicense() and IFactory.proposeBasketLicense().
@code423n4 code423n4 added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Warden finding labels Oct 9, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 9, 2021
@code423n4
pants issue #43
dabbe4d
@frank-beard frank-beard added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label Oct 19, 2021
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

I agree with the finding, however, the compiler will either refuse to compile, or simply use the data location from the actual implementation of the method (Factory).

As such, I will downgrade the finding to low severity, as it has to do with improper code / documentation more so than a functionality that can actually reduce protocol availability

@GalloDaSballo GalloDaSballo added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Dec 19, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Warden finding 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