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

no validation checks in ControllerV1.sol initialize function() #57

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 27, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

no validation checks in ControllerV1.sol initialize function() #57

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 27, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

jayjonah8

Vulnerability details

Impact

In ControllerV1.sol in the initialize() function there are no validation checks on the passed in arguments before setting them to storage which can result in costly errors.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-01-openleverage/blob/main/openleverage-contracts/contracts/ControllerV1.sol#L33

Tools Used

Manual code review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Add validation checks to addresses and the _oleWethDexData bytes argument.
@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 Jan 27, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 27, 2022
@code423n4
jayjonah8 issue #57
9af8cba
@ColaM12 ColaM12 added disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels Jan 27, 2022
@ColaM12 ColaM12 closed this as completed Jan 27, 2022
@ColaM12
Copy link
Collaborator

ColaM12 commented Jan 27, 2022 •
edited

Not see any risk on this issue. Recommend severity: "0(None Critical)"

@ColaM12 ColaM12 reopened this Jan 27, 2022
This was referenced Jan 29, 2022
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
Closed
@0xleastwood
Copy link
Collaborator

Agree with sponsor, there are no direct security implications. Marking as non-critical.

@0xleastwood 0xleastwood added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) labels Feb 19, 2022
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@0xleastwood @code423n4 @ColaM12