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

Upgraded Q -> M from 119 [1654475092615] #340

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jun 6, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed

Upgraded Q -> M from 119 [1654475092615] #340

code423n4 opened this issue Jun 6, 2022 · 1 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 upgraded by judge

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

code423n4 commented Jun 6, 2022

Judge has assessed an item in Issue #119 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows:

Checking whether the receiver is capable of holding ERC721
The contract usessafeTransfer() for ERC20 but uses transferFrom() for ERC721 in both exercise() and withdraw() which may lead to the loss of ERC721 if the receiving contract does not have onERC721Received(). To prevent this unintended circumstance, the contract should replace this function with safeTransferFrom() for ERC721 to check whether the receiving contract is IERC721Receiver.

@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 upgraded by judge labels Jun 6, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 6, 2022
@HardlyDifficult HardlyDifficult added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Jun 6, 2022
@HardlyDifficult
Copy link
Collaborator

Dupe of #38

# 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 upgraded by judge
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants