potential overflow with amount parameter may have unintended effects

[code423n4]

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-escher/blob/5d8be6aa0e8634fdb2f328b99076b0d05fefab73/src/minters/LPDA.sol#L58-L59
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-escher/blob/5d8be6aa0e8634fdb2f328b99076b0d05fefab73/src/minters/FixedPrice.sol#L57-L74
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-escher/blob/5d8be6aa0e8634fdb2f328b99076b0d05fefab73/src/minters/OpenEdition.sol#L57-L72

Vulnerability details

Impact

The variable _amount is uint256 but the variable amount is uint24 so the variable amount the full value may not be stored.

These calculations and operations may produce incorrect results if the amount variable has a different value than what was intended.

This could still cause the contract to behave unexpectedly and potentially lead to financial losses for users of the contract or incorrect balances being stored.

Proof of Concept

This possibility exists because the amount variable is defined as an uint48 type, which has a narrower range of possible values than the _amount parameter's uint256 type.

If the value assigned to the amount variable is greater than the maximum value that can be stored in an uint48 type, the value will be truncated. This truncation may result in the amount variable having a different value than intended.

Tools Used

Manual Audit

Recommended Mitigation Steps

if (_amount <= uint48.max()) {
  uint48 amount = uint48(_amount);
  ...
} else {
  // Handle _amount being too large
}

[c4-judge]

berndartmueller marked the issue as duplicate of #369

[c4-judge]

berndartmueller marked the issue as satisfactory