Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? # for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “#”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? # to your account

Unsafe transfer in RocketJoeFactory #30

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 25, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

Unsafe transfer in RocketJoeFactory #30

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 25, 2022 · 2 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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

0x1f8b

Vulnerability details

Impact

Unsafe transferFrom.

Proof of Concept

In the method RocketJoeFactory.createRJLaunchEvent it's made one transferFrom without checking the boolean result, ERC20 standard specify that the token can return false if the transfer was not made, so it's mandatory to check the result of transfer methods.

Affected line: RocketJoeFactory:132

Tools Used

Manual review.

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Check the boolean result.

@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working labels Jan 25, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 25, 2022
@cryptofish7 cryptofish7 added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Feb 11, 2022
@cryptofish7
Copy link
Collaborator

Duplicate of #12

@cryptofish7 cryptofish7 marked this as a duplicate of #12 Feb 11, 2022
@dmvt dmvt added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value and removed 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments labels Feb 22, 2022
@dmvt
Copy link
Collaborator

dmvt commented Feb 22, 2022

This could result in a loss of funds given the right external conditions.

2 — Med (M): vulns have a risk of 2 and are considered “Medium” severity when assets are not at direct risk, but the function of the protocol or its availability could be impacted, or leak value with a hypothetical attack path with stated assumptions, but external requirements.

# for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? # to comment
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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants