Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 04/01/2023
Pot Size: $60,500 USDC
Total HM: 15
Participants: 105
Period: 5 days
Judge: gzeon
Total Solo HM: 1
Id: 200
League: ETH
Rank: 97/105
Findings: 1
Award: $26.26
π Selected for report: 0
π Solo Findings: 0
π Selected for report: adriro
Also found by: 0x1f8b, 0x73696d616f, 0xdeadbeef0x, BClabs, HE1M, Haipls, Jayus, Kalzak, Lirios, Qeew, V_B, adriro, ast3ros, aviggiano, betweenETHlines, bin2chen, chaduke, dragotanqueray, ey88, giovannidisiena, hihen, horsefacts, ladboy233, wait, zaskoh
26.2582 USDC - $26.26
https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-biconomy/blob/main/scw-contracts/contracts/smart-contract-wallet/SmartAccountFactory.sol#L33 https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-01-biconomy/blob/main/scw-contracts/contracts/smart-contract-wallet/SmartAccount.sol#L166
Detailed description of the impact of this finding.
The entrypoint is being set in the init(args...)
function of SmartAccount.sol. The problem is that the malicious users could create wallets for legitimate owners of wallets and set the entrypoint contract to be anything they want.
What's more, a wallet creation for a user could be frontran by a malicious actor, returning exactly the same address as expected, but with a different entry point. The reason is that the entryPoint is not being used as the salt.
function init(address _owner, address _entryPointAddress, address _handler) public override initializer { require(owner == address(0), "Already initialized"); require(address(_entryPoint) == address(0), "Already initialized"); require(_owner != address(0),"Invalid owner"); require(_entryPointAddress != address(0), "Invalid Entrypoint"); require(_handler != address(0), "Invalid Entrypoint"); owner = _owner; _entryPoint = IEntryPoint(payable(_entryPointAddress)); if (_handler != address(0)) internalSetFallbackHandler(_handler); setupModules(address(0), bytes("")); }
function deployCounterFactualWallet(address _owner, address _entryPoint, address _handler, uint _index) public returns(address proxy){ bytes32 salt = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(_owner, address(uint160(_index)))); bytes memory deploymentData = abi.encodePacked(type(Proxy).creationCode, uint(uint160(_defaultImpl))); // solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly assembly { proxy := create2(0x0, add(0x20, deploymentData), mload(deploymentData), salt) } require(address(proxy) != address(0), "Create2 call failed"); // EOA + Version tracking emit SmartAccountCreated(proxy,_defaultImpl,_owner, VERSION, _index); BaseSmartAccount(proxy).init(_owner, _entryPoint, _handler); isAccountExist[proxy] = true; }
Add entrypoint to salt.
function deployCounterFactualWallet(address _owner, address _entryPoint, address _handler, uint _index) public returns(address proxy){ bytes32 salt = keccak256(abi.encodePacked(_owner, address(uint160(_index)), _entryPoint)); bytes memory deploymentData = abi.encodePacked(type(Proxy).creationCode, uint(uint160(_defaultImpl))); // solhint-disable-next-line no-inline-assembly assembly { proxy := create2(0x0, add(0x20, deploymentData), mload(deploymentData), salt) } require(address(proxy) != address(0), "Create2 call failed"); // EOA + Version tracking emit SmartAccountCreated(proxy,_defaultImpl,_owner, VERSION, _index); BaseSmartAccount(proxy).init(_owner, _entryPoint, _handler); isAccountExist[proxy] = true; }
#0 - c4-judge
2023-01-17T07:22:23Z
gzeon-c4 marked the issue as duplicate of #460
#1 - livingrockrises
2023-01-26T02:02:49Z
If you recommend to add entryPoint to the salt then handler should also be added to the salt.
Additional notes: If the owner address is changed it doesn't affect the user as only that specific owner will be the controller of the smart account. If for a counterfactual wallet entry point initialised is different than intended, then the owner can update the entry point on their own smart account to a right one. But I agree this should be evaluated..
#2 - c4-sponsor
2023-01-26T02:03:00Z
livingrockrises marked the issue as disagree with severity
#3 - c4-sponsor
2023-01-26T02:03:06Z
livingrockrises marked the issue as sponsor confirmed
#4 - livingrockrises
2023-01-26T02:20:12Z
agree with severity as per proof shown in issues like #460 but lack of proof here
#5 - c4-sponsor
2023-01-26T02:27:45Z
livingrockrises requested judge review
#6 - c4-judge
2023-02-10T11:35:42Z
gzeon-c4 marked the issue as partial-50
#7 - c4-judge
2023-02-10T12:24:50Z
gzeon-c4 marked the issue as satisfactory
#8 - c4-judge
2023-02-10T12:25:21Z
gzeon-c4 changed the severity to 3 (High Risk)