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

Floating pragma #23

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 5, 2021 · 4 comments
Open

Floating pragma #23

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 5, 2021 · 4 comments
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 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

saian

Vulnerability details

Impact

Contracts should be deployed with the same version of compilers with which it was tested,
Using a unlocked pragma might result in contract being deployed with a version it was not tested with, and might result in bugs and unwanted behaviour.

Proof of Concept

Contracts in below repositories :
maple-labs/debt-locker
maple-labs/erc20-helper
maple-labs/loan
maple-labs/maple-proxy-factory
maple-labs/proxy-factory

Tools Used

Manual Analysis

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Lock the pragma version, it is advised not to use unlocked pragma in production.
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working labels Dec 5, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 5, 2021
@code423n4
saian issue #23
a4a3e81
@lucas-manuel
Copy link
Collaborator

Disagree with this being a bug, more informational, but will address.

@lucas-manuel lucas-manuel 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 Dec 8, 2021
@deluca-mike deluca-mike added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) and removed disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) labels Dec 8, 2021
@deluca-mike
Copy link
Collaborator

@lucas-manuel But is it technically still at least low-risk?

@lucas-manuel
Copy link
Collaborator

I don't think I'd consider it low risk, I would if we used >= instead of ^, but since it was not allowing anything above 0.8, there's not any real threat, just good practice more than anything.

This was referenced Dec 10, 2021
Merged
Merged
@pauliax
Copy link
Collaborator

pauliax commented Dec 15, 2021

Low hanging fruit, informational issue.

@pauliax pauliax mentioned this issue Dec 15, 2021
Closed
@CloudEllie CloudEllie 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 20, 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 Something isn't working 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
5 participants
@pauliax @deluca-mike @lucas-manuel @code423n4 @CloudEllie