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

Early depositors to TokenggAVAX.sol can manipulate the price per share to steal funds from later depositors. #663

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 3, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

Early depositors to TokenggAVAX.sol can manipulate the price per share to steal funds from later depositors. #663

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 3, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working duplicate-209 satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards upgraded by judge Original issue severity upgraded from QA/Gas by judge

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-gogopool/blob/main/contracts/contract/tokens/TokenggAVAX.sol#L166
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-gogopool/blob/main/contracts/contract/tokens/upgradeable/ERC4626Upgradeable.sol#L42

Vulnerability details

Impact

Attackers can manipulate the price per share in TokenggAVAX to take an unfair share of future users because the protocol allows users to deposit a insignificant amount of tokens.

Proof of Concept

A malicious early user can deposit() with 1 wei of asset token and get 1 wei of shares. Then he/she can send 10000e18 - 1 of asset tokens and inflate the price per share from 1 to an extreme value of 1e22

(1 + 10000e18 - 1) / 1 = 1e22

A future user who deposits 19999e18 will only receive 1 wei of shares token.

19999e18 * 1 / 10000e18 = 1

he/she would lose 9999e18 if they redeem() right after the deposit().

Tools Used

Manual Review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Require minimum amount of share in deposit function and mint function.
@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 Jan 3, 2023
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 3, 2023
@code423n4
sces60107 issue #663
75c3d0c
C4-Staff added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2023
@C4-Staff
original risk added for issue #663
624e4e0
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Jan 8, 2023

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as duplicate of #209

@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Jan 8, 2023
@c4-judge c4-judge added 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly upgraded by judge Original issue severity upgraded from QA/Gas by judge and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Jan 29, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

GalloDaSballo changed the severity to 3 (High Risk)

@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 8, 2023

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as satisfactory

@c4-judge c4-judge added the satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards label Feb 8, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working duplicate-209 satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards upgraded by judge Original issue severity upgraded from QA/Gas by judge
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@code423n4 @c4-judge