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

Unchecked call to refund address can lead to Native tokens not to be refunded #498

Closed
c4-bot-9 opened this issue Jan 23, 2024 · 3 comments
Closed

Unchecked call to refund address can lead to Native tokens not to be refunded #498

c4-bot-9 opened this issue Jan 23, 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 insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards

Comments

@c4-bot-9
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-01-decent/blob/011f62059f3a0b1f3577c8ccd1140f0cf3e7bb29/src/UTBExecutor.sol#L54
https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-01-decent/blob/011f62059f3a0b1f3577c8ccd1140f0cf3e7bb29/src/UTBExecutor.sol#L67

Vulnerability details

Impact

Medium

Proof of Concept:

There is no check for the success of the refund call to refund addresses. As a result, extra native tokens may not be refunded if the address does not support refunds, potentially causing ETH to remain stuck in UTBExecutor with no extraction capability.

Tools Used:

Manual assessment

Recommended Mitigation Steps:

Add a functionality to withdraw native tokens from UTBExecutor that remain stuck

Assessed type

ETH-Transfer
@c4-bot-9 c4-bot-9 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 23, 2024
c4-bot-8 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 23, 2024
@c4-bot-8
Timepunk issue #498
661d9a8
@c4-pre-sort c4-pre-sort added the insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality label Jan 25, 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 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
Assignees
No one assigned
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 insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@c4-judge @c4-pre-sort @c4-bot-9