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.

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

Two-step change of a critical parameter #10

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 14, 2021 · 1 comment
Open

Two-step change of a critical parameter #10

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 14, 2021 · 1 comment
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working 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

certora

Vulnerability details

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-12-amun/blob/main/contracts/basket/contracts/callManagers/RebalanceManager.sol#L57

In RebalanceManager function setRebalanceManager allows an admin to change it to a different address. This function has no validations, even a simple check for zero-address is missing, and there is no validation of the new address being correct. If the admin accidentally uses an invalid address for which they do not have the private key, then the system gets locked because the swivel cannot be corrected and none of the other functions that require admin caller can be executed. A similar issue was reported in a previous contest and was assigned a severity of medium: code-423n4/2021-06-realitycards-findings#105

Recomendation

add two steps for admin change.

@code423n4 code423n4 added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working labels Dec 14, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 14, 2021
@hemulin hemulin 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") sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons and removed sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") labels Dec 21, 2021
@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

Don't think this poses any security concern and it adds unnecessary overhead for all state changing functions. Marking as non-critical.

@0xleastwood 0xleastwood reopened this Jan 18, 2022
@0xleastwood 0xleastwood added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Jan 24, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working 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
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants