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

Range set to 0 in setLimitOrderPriceRange() can cause issues in executeLimitOrder() #619

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 16, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

Range set to 0 in setLimitOrderPriceRange() can cause issues in executeLimitOrder() #619

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 16, 2022 · 5 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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) duplicate-377 satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-tigris/blob/main/contracts/Trading.sol#L939
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-tigris/blob/main/contracts/Trading.sol#L496

Vulnerability details

Impact

Can cause issues in executeLimitOrder() to always revert unless price = trade.price

Proof of Concept

-Set _range to 0 in setLimitOrderPriceRange() in https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-tigris/blob/main/contracts/Trading.sol#L939
-This then causes executeLimitOrder() to always revert unless price = trade.price via https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-tigris/blob/main/contracts/Trading.sol#L496

Tools Used

None

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Add in a check so that _range cannot be 0 in setLimitOrderPriceRange()
@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 Dec 16, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 16, 2022
@code423n4
kwhuo68 issue #619
cd6177d
C4-Staff added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2023
@C4-Staff
original risk added for issue #619
c39d736
@TriHaz
Copy link

TriHaz commented Jan 9, 2023

Ideally, setting _rage to 0 shouldn't happen, but a check in setLimitOrderPriceRange() should be added, I would change severity to QA.

@c4-sponsor c4-sponsor added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label Jan 9, 2023
@c4-sponsor
Copy link

TriHaz marked the issue as sponsor confirmed

@c4-sponsor c4-sponsor added the disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) label Jan 9, 2023
@c4-sponsor
Copy link

TriHaz marked the issue as disagree with severity

@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as duplicate of #377

@c4-judge c4-judge added the satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards label Jan 22, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as satisfactory

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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) duplicate-377 satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@code423n4 @c4-judge @c4-sponsor @TriHaz