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

Unchecked Return Values #325

Closed
c4-bot-10 opened this issue Jan 22, 2024 · 6 comments
Closed

Unchecked Return Values #325

c4-bot-10 opened this issue Jan 22, 2024 · 6 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-641 insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards

Comments

@c4-bot-10
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-01-decent/blob/main/src/UTBExecutor.sol#L70

Vulnerability details

Impact

Detailed description of the impact of this finding.
Unchecked Return Values: The contract does not check the return value of the transferFrom and transfer calls for ERC20 tokens. It is important to check these return values to ensure that the transfers were successful.

Proof of Concept

Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates the concept.

(success, ) = target.call(payload);

Tools Used

Recommended Mitigation Steps

check the success with require statement.

Assessed type

Token-Transfer

@c4-bot-10 c4-bot-10 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-8 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 #70

@raymondfam
Copy link

Extremely insufficient proof to elicit what #70 does.

@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Feb 2, 2024

alex-ppg marked the issue as not a duplicate

@c4-judge c4-judge reopened this Feb 2, 2024
@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Feb 2, 2024
@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Feb 2, 2024

alex-ppg marked the issue as duplicate of #641

@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-641 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