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

If A User Mistakenly Provides Too Much Ether To The passThruGate() Function, This Additional Amount Will Be Forever Locked Within The Contract #240

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue May 8, 2022 · 3 comments
Closed

If A User Mistakenly Provides Too Much Ether To The passThruGate() Function, This Additional Amount Will Be Forever Locked Within The Contract #240

code423n4 opened this issue May 8, 2022 · 3 comments
Labels
3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-05-factorydao/blob/main/contracts/FixedPricePassThruGate.sol#L46-L56

Vulnerability details

Impact

The passThruGate() function acts as a proxy function to the beneficiary address by attaching Ether to the call. If an excess of Ether is provided to the call, only gate.ethCost will be sent to the beneficiary. Excess Ether will be forever be locked in the contract as there is no way to have it refunded to the caller.

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Consider enforcing that msg.value == gate.ethCost such that users can not provide an excess of Ether.
@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 May 8, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue May 8, 2022
@code423n4
leastwood issue #240
0197332
@illuzen
Copy link
Collaborator

illuzen commented May 12, 2022

Duplicate #49

@illuzen illuzen closed this as completed May 12, 2022
@illuzen illuzen added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label May 12, 2022
@gititGoro gititGoro added 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Jun 14, 2022
@gititGoro
Copy link
Collaborator

Duplicate of #48

@gititGoro gititGoro marked this as a duplicate of #48 Jun 14, 2022
@gititGoro
Copy link
Collaborator

Upgraded severity: lost funds.

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 This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@illuzen @gititGoro @code423n4