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

Possible DDOS in PA1D contract if payout is the contract with receive or fallback that uses more then 2300 gas #182

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Oct 24, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

Possible DDOS in PA1D contract if payout is the contract with receive or fallback that uses more then 2300 gas #182

code423n4 opened this issue Oct 24, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-holograph/blob/main/contracts/enforcer/PA1D.sol#L382-L399

Vulnerability details

Impact

PA1D._payoutEth function is used to pay fees to the fee receivers. It takes an array of receivers and send payment to them one by one.
It uses transfer method for sending payout. It sends only 2300 gas to the receiver. If receiver contract needs more than 2300 gas to receive payout, then the function will revert, so no one from fee receivers will not receive anything.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-10-holograph/blob/main/contracts/enforcer/PA1D.sol#L382-L399

Tools Used

VsCode

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Use call method instead or better allow receivers to claim fees for themselves.
@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 Oct 24, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Oct 24, 2022
@code423n4
rvierdiiev issue #182
ddbdf86
@gzeoneth
Copy link
Member

Duplicate of #33

@gzeoneth gzeoneth marked this as a duplicate of #33 Oct 28, 2022
@gzeoneth gzeoneth added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Oct 28, 2022
@gzeoneth gzeoneth added QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Nov 21, 2022
@gzeoneth
Copy link
Member

Consider with #177

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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@code423n4 @gzeoneth