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

Missing onlyUnInitialized modifier on initialize() function #114

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Apr 1, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed

Missing onlyUnInitialized modifier on initialize() function #114

code423n4 opened this issue Apr 1, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists 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

Missing onlyUnInitialized modifier on initialize() function
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-03-joyn/blob/main/core-contracts/contracts/CoreCollection.sol#L78
Guess that onlyUnInitialized modifier were created for initialized() function, but it wasn't called on the function. As the name, initialize should be called once early when the contract is deployed. But in the current implementation the initialize can be called multiple times

RECOMMENDED MITIGATION STEP
I recommend to call the onlyUnInitialized in the initialize() function
@code423n4 code423n4 added bug Something isn't working QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax labels Apr 1, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Apr 1, 2022
@code423n4
rfa issue #114
d941132
@sofianeOuafir
Copy link
Collaborator

In my opinion, the severity level should be 3 (High Risk)

duplicate of #4

@sofianeOuafir sofianeOuafir added duplicate This issue or pull request already exists 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 Apr 14, 2022
@deluca-mike deluca-mike added 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly and removed disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax labels Apr 22, 2022
@deluca-mike deluca-mike changed the title QA Report Missing onlyUnInitialized modifier on initialize() function Apr 22, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists 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
@sofianeOuafir @deluca-mike @code423n4