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

UserEscrow: If the ERC20 token has blacklist, it may cause the fund locking in the contract #591

Closed
c4-submissions opened this issue Sep 14, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

UserEscrow: If the ERC20 token has blacklist, it may cause the fund locking in the contract #591

c4-submissions opened this issue Sep 14, 2023 · 3 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue duplicate-32 grade-b QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax sufficient quality report This report is of sufficient quality

Comments

@c4-submissions
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-09-centrifuge/blob/main/src/UserEscrow.sol#L43

Vulnerability details

Impact

If the ERC20 token has blacklist, it may cause the fund locking in the contract
Because UserEscrow.transferOut() transfer to the receiver by checking receiver == destination || (ERC20Like(token).allowance(destination, receiver) == type(uint256).max)
However, if Alice deposits part of the funds(such as USDC) into the contract. After a while, Alice entered the blacklist,so she can not call the approve() of the ERC20 token, so the condition (ERC20Like(token).allowance(destination, receiver) == type(uint256).max cannot be established, and the funds will lock in the contract.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-09-centrifuge/blob/main/src/UserEscrow.sol#L43

Tools Used

manual

Recommended Mitigation Steps

I suggest adding an approve function to the UserEscrow contract. The user can specify the approved user through this function, and then function transferOut() can check whether the user has been approved

Assessed type

ERC20
@c4-submissions c4-submissions 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 Sep 14, 2023
c4-submissions added a commit that referenced this issue Sep 14, 2023
@c4-submissions
Bughunter101 issue #591
c955314
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

raymondfam marked the issue as sufficient quality report

@c4-pre-sort c4-pre-sort added the sufficient quality report This report is of sufficient quality label Sep 15, 2023
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

raymondfam marked the issue as duplicate of #32

@c4-judge c4-judge removed the 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value label Sep 25, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link

gzeon-c4 changed the severity to QA (Quality Assurance)

@c4-judge c4-judge added downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax labels Sep 25, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue duplicate-32 grade-b QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax sufficient quality report This report is of sufficient quality
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@c4-judge @c4-pre-sort @C4-Staff @c4-submissions