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

addFeedFor should check if inverse feed already exists #79

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Jul 6, 2022 · 0 comments
Open

addFeedFor should check if inverse feed already exists #79

code423n4 opened this issue Jul 6, 2022 · 0 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 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") valid

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/jbx-protocol/juice-contracts-v2-code4rena/blob/828bf2f3e719873daa08081cfa0d0a6deaa5ace5/contracts/JBPrices.sol#L109-L122

Vulnerability details

Impact

Potentially inconsistent currency conversions

Proof of Concept

addFeedFor requires that a price feed for the _currency _base doesn't exist when adding a new price feed but doesn't check if the inverse already exists. This means that two different oracles (potentially with different prices) could be used for _currency -> _base vs. _base -> _currency. Different prices would lead to inconsistent between conversion ratios depending on the direction of the conversion

Tools Used

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Change L115 to:
if (feedFor[_currency][_base] != IJBPriceFeed(address(0)) || feedFor[_base][_currency] != IJBPriceFeed(address(0))) revert PRICE_FEED_ALREADY_EXISTS()
@code423n4 code423n4 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 Jul 6, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jul 6, 2022
@code423n4
0x52 issue #79
96115a4
@mejango mejango added documentation Improvements or additions to documentation sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels Jul 12, 2022
@mejango mejango mentioned this issue Jul 12, 2022
Closed
@mejango mejango added sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") and removed sponsor acknowledged Technically the issue is correct, but we're not going to resolve it for XYZ reasons labels Jul 13, 2022
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 documentation Improvements or additions to documentation sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") valid
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@mejango @code423n4 @jack-the-pug