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

Not check the low-level call return value #41

Closed
c4-bot-5 opened this issue Jan 21, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Not check the low-level call return value #41

c4-bot-5 opened this issue Jan 21, 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-5
Copy link
Contributor

c4-bot-5 commented Jan 21, 2024

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-01-decent/blob/07ef78215e3d246d47a410651906287c6acec3ef/src/UTBExecutor.sol#L67
https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-01-decent/blob/07ef78215e3d246d47a410651906287c6acec3ef/src/UTBExecutor.sol#L54

Vulnerability details

Impact

If the call fails, it will cause the user to lose funds.

Proof of Concept

If refund is a contract, the call will call the fallback logic, and the execution logic may fail, causing the user to be unable to accept refund funds.
UTBExecutor will default to the refund being successful, causing the user to lose funds.
UTBExecutor should support wrapped native token so that ERC20 tokens can be transferred even if the call fails.

Tools Used

Manual review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Check call return value, and if the call fails, converted into wrapped native token and transfered to the refund address.

Assessed type

call/delegatecall

@c4-bot-5 c4-bot-5 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 21, 2024
c4-bot-8 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 21, 2024
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

raymondfam marked the issue as insufficient quality report

@c4-pre-sort c4-pre-sort added the insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality label Jan 23, 2024
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

raymondfam marked the issue as duplicate of #25

@c4-judge c4-judge added the unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards label Feb 2, 2024
@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Feb 2, 2024

alex-ppg marked the issue as unsatisfactory:
Invalid

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