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

Contract ERC20H lacks withdraw functions #55

Open
Tracked by #88
code423n4 opened this issue Oct 20, 2022 · 2 comments
Open
Tracked by #88

Contract ERC20H lacks withdraw functions #55

code423n4 opened this issue Oct 20, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) grade-b QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax responded The Holograph team has reviewed and responded 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

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-holograph/blob/main/contracts/abstract/ERC20H.sol#L106-L229

Vulnerability details

Impact

Contract ERC20H has payable functions (receive(), fallback(), etc.), but does not have a function to withdraw, therefore, every Ether sent to HolographERC20 will be lost.

Proof of Concept

Contract functions and structure illustrate the concept.

Tools Used

Slither

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Remove the payable attribute or add a withdraw function.
@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 Oct 20, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 20, 2022
@code423n4
cdahlheimer issue #55
28df416
@gzeoneth gzeoneth added the disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) label Oct 28, 2022
This was referenced Oct 28, 2022
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
@alexanderattar
Copy link

Low risk but valid. We will either remove the payable attribute or add a withdraw function as suggested

@alexanderattar alexanderattar added sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") responded The Holograph team has reviewed and responded labels Nov 8, 2022
@gzeoneth gzeoneth added QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Nov 19, 2022
@gzeoneth
Copy link
Member

As QA report

@gzeoneth gzeoneth reopened this Nov 21, 2022
@ACC01ADE ACC01ADE mentioned this issue Nov 22, 2022
Merged
53 tasks
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) grade-b QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax responded The Holograph team has reviewed and responded 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
4 participants
@alexanderattar @code423n4 @CloudEllie @gzeoneth