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

Access control modifier can be bypassed #147

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Jun 18, 2022 · 1 comment
Open

Access control modifier can be bypassed #147

code423n4 opened this issue Jun 18, 2022 · 1 comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working 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 sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons valid

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/Badger-Finance/vested-aura/blob/v0.0.2/contracts/MyStrategy.sol#L370-L375
https://github.com/Badger-Finance/vested-aura/blob/v0.0.2/contracts/MyStrategy.sol#L390-L394

Vulnerability details

Impact

The whenNotPaused modifier in manualProcessExpiredLocks() can be bypassed simply by calling performUpkeep(...) with any argument. Those two functions do the same.

Tools Used

Manual analysis

Recommended Mitigation Steps

If the design is not to allow such such call when paused, a whenNotPaused modifier should be used also in performUpkeep(...).
@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 Jun 18, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 18, 2022
@code423n4
Czar102 issue #147
fba581d
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link
Collaborator

Agree with code inconsistency, disagree with any vulnerability, if anything we should make the manualProcessLocks also open to everyone

@GalloDaSballo GalloDaSballo added 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 labels Jun 18, 2022
@jack-the-pug jack-the-pug added QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax valid and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Jul 5, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working 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 sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons valid
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@GalloDaSballo @code423n4 @jack-the-pug