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

Does not check uniqueness of ShareHolder #231

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Nov 18, 2021 · 1 comment
Closed

Does not check uniqueness of ShareHolder #231

code423n4 opened this issue Nov 18, 2021 · 1 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 This issue or pull request already exists 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

Handle

hack3r-0m

Vulnerability details

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-nested/blob/main/contracts/FeeSplitter.sol#L264

does not check if there is already a shareholder before creating a new shareholder.

this will cause an issue in findShareHolder since it will return the first shareholder in the array while there are more than one.
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working labels Nov 18, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 18, 2021
@code423n4
hack3r-0m issue #231
3e4a845
@adrien-supizet adrien-supizet added the sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons label Nov 19, 2021
@maximebrugel maximebrugel added duplicate This issue or pull request already exists and removed sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels Nov 22, 2021
@code-423n4 code-423n4 deleted a comment from maximebrugel Nov 22, 2021
@adrien-supizet adrien-supizet mentioned this issue Nov 22, 2021
Open
@adrien-supizet adrien-supizet added sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") and removed duplicate This issue or pull request already exists labels Nov 22, 2021
@alcueca alcueca added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Dec 3, 2021
@alcueca
Copy link
Collaborator

alcueca commented Dec 3, 2021

Duplicate of #135, taken as principal.

@alcueca alcueca closed this as completed Dec 3, 2021
@CloudEllie CloudEllie added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Dec 3, 2021
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 This issue or pull request already exists 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
5 participants
@maximebrugel @adrien-supizet @alcueca @code423n4 @CloudEllie