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.

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

refund call don't check return success. #147

Closed
c4-bot-7 opened this issue Jan 22, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

refund call don't check return success. #147

c4-bot-7 opened this issue Jan 22, 2024 · 3 comments
Labels
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 duplicate-25 edited-by-warden insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards

Comments

@c4-bot-7
Copy link
Contributor

c4-bot-7 commented Jan 22, 2024

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-01-decent/blob/d562762c3bf58cca7e24171873fb7b6fbfa7b2b5/src/UTBExecutor.sol#L54

Vulnerability details

Impact

refund call don't check return success, this may cause user to lose funds.

Proof of Concept

    function execute(
     address target,
        address paymentOperator,
        bytes memory payload,
        address token,
        uint amount,
        address payable refund,
        uint extraNative
    ) public onlyOwner {
        bool success;
        if (token == address(0)) {
            (success, ) = target.call{value: amount}(payload);
            if (!success) {
@>               (refund.call{value: amount}(""));
            }
            return;
        }

According to the code, only check the low level to target success or not but not check the refund call success or not. If the target call success but the refund call fail, the user will lose funds.

Tools Used

manual

Recommended Mitigation Steps

check low level call return value of refund call.

Assessed type

Invalid Validation

@c4-bot-7 c4-bot-7 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 Jan 22, 2024
c4-bot-1 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 22, 2024
@c4-pre-sort c4-pre-sort added the insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality label Jan 24, 2024
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

raymondfam marked the issue as insufficient quality report

@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

raymondfam marked the issue as duplicate of #25

@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Feb 2, 2024

alex-ppg marked the issue as unsatisfactory:
Invalid

@c4-judge c4-judge added the unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards label Feb 2, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
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 duplicate-25 edited-by-warden insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants