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

Signature Checks could be passed when SignatureDecoder.recoverKey() returns 0 #179

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Aug 6, 2022 · 2 comments
Open

Signature Checks could be passed when SignatureDecoder.recoverKey() returns 0 #179

code423n4 opened this issue Aug 6, 2022 · 2 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 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/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/main/contracts/Project.sol#L887
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-rigor/blob/main/contracts/Project.sol#L108-L115

Vulnerability details

Impact

It is possible to pass Signature Validity check with an SignatureDecoder.recoverKey() returns 0 whenever the builder and /or contractor have an existing approved hash for a data.

With occurrence of above, any user can call changeOrder or setComplete functions successfully after user approves data hashes.

Tools Used

Manual review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

There should be a require check for _recoveredSignature != 0 in checkSignatureValidity()
@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 Aug 6, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Aug 6, 2022
@code423n4
cryptphi issue #179
5a09860
@parv3213
Copy link
Collaborator

#371

@itsmetechjay itsmetechjay added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Aug 18, 2022
@jack-the-pug
Copy link
Collaborator

jack-the-pug commented Aug 27, 2022 •
edited

Making this the main issue.

@JeeberC4 JeeberC4 removed the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Sep 5, 2022
@JeeberC4 JeeberC4 reopened this Sep 5, 2022
@parv3213 parv3213 added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label Sep 12, 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 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
5 participants
@parv3213 @code423n4 @jack-the-pug @itsmetechjay @JeeberC4