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

maxSupply can be exceeded #146

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 10, 2021 · 2 comments
Open

maxSupply can be exceeded #146

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 10, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

0x0x0x

Vulnerability details

Lets say there is already as many tokens as maxSupply. A user calls burn with amount = 1. handleFees create more than 1 token. Therefore, maxSupply is exceeded. Furthermore, the same can also happen again, when maxSupply is already exceeded.
@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 10, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 10, 2021
@code423n4
0x0x0x issue #146
5d076bc
@frank-beard frank-beard added sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) labels Feb 23, 2022
@frank-beard
Copy link
Collaborator

While this could happen, this shouldn't affect any of the functionality of the basket and can be rectified by the publisher by resetting the maxSupply or more burns. Generally I would consider this a low risk issue.

@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

While I agree that this is an issue, it does not lead to any unexpected behaviour and as such I'd deem this as low risk as its more of a state handling issue.

@0xleastwood 0xleastwood 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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) labels Mar 27, 2022
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 Something isn't working 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
@0xleastwood @code423n4 @frank-beard