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

withdrawRemainingTokens function doesn't work properly if withdrawFee function called before #66

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 26, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

withdrawRemainingTokens function doesn't work properly if withdrawFee function called before #66

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 26, 2023 · 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 downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue duplicate-122 edited-by-warden satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

code423n4 commented Jan 26, 2023 •
edited

Lines of code

https://github.com/rabbitholegg/quest-protocol/blob/8c4c1f71221570b14a0479c216583342bd652d8d/contracts/Erc20Quest.sol#L85
https://github.com/rabbitholegg/quest-protocol/blob/8c4c1f71221570b14a0479c216583342bd652d8d/contracts/Erc20Quest.sol#L96-L98

Vulnerability details

Impact

Due to protocolsFee doesnt update with withdrawFee withdraw remaining function doesn't understand protocol fees withdrawn before and give missing money for owner.

Proof of Concept

Contract token balance decrease with withdrawFee however protocolFee doesnt update. While calculating remaining tokens,even if withdrawFee has been called before, it still take into account of this fee amount in line-85,so it gives missing amount of token to quote owner.

Tools Used

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Update protocolFee() after using withdrawFee().
@code423n4 code423n4 added 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working labels Jan 26, 2023
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 26, 2023
@code423n4
mert_eren issue #66
8f91ff9
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 3, 2023

kirk-baird marked the issue as duplicate of #42

@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Feb 3, 2023
@c4-judge c4-judge reopened this Feb 6, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 6, 2023

kirk-baird marked the issue as not a duplicate

@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Feb 6, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 6, 2023

kirk-baird marked the issue as duplicate of #61

@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

kirk-baird marked the issue as satisfactory

@c4-judge c4-judge added satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards duplicate-122 and removed duplicate-61 labels Feb 14, 2023
@c4-judge c4-judge removed the 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly label Feb 23, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

kirk-baird changed the severity to 2 (Med Risk)

@c4-judge c4-judge added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue labels Feb 23, 2023
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 downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue duplicate-122 edited-by-warden satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

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