Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 07/07/2023
Pot Size: $121,650 USDC
Total HM: 36
Participants: 111
Period: 7 days
Judge: Picodes
Total Solo HM: 13
Id: 258
League: ETH
Rank: 13/111
Findings: 3
Award: $1,809.54
🌟 Selected for report: 1
🚀 Solo Findings: 1
🌟 Selected for report: Udsen
Also found by: 0xMirce, 0xPsuedoPandit, 0xStalin, 0xbepresent, Aymen0909, Bobface, Co0nan, GREY-HAWK-REACH, Jeiwan, John, KupiaSec, LuchoLeonel1, Nyx, Praise, RedTiger, alexweb3, bin2chen, btk, dacian, dirk_y, josephdara, keccak123, ktg, mahdirostami, markus_ether, minhtrng, ni8mare, peanuts, ptsanev, ravikiranweb3, rvierdiiev, seeques, serial-coder, shaka, teawaterwire, wangxx2026, zzzitron
2.2492 USDC - $2.25
Lack of access-control allows anyone to mint the yield fee to himself.
Vault.mintYieldFee
does not restrict the _recipient
yield fees:
function mintYieldFee(uint256 _shares, address _recipient) external { _requireVaultCollateralized(); if (_shares > _yieldFeeTotalSupply) revert YieldFeeGTAvailable(_shares, _yieldFeeTotalSupply); _yieldFeeTotalSupply -= _shares; _mint(_recipient, _shares); emit MintYieldFee(msg.sender, _recipient, _shares); }
Manual Review
Dont use an extra parameter for the recipient and use the contracts _yieldFeeRecipient
instead.
Access Control
#0 - c4-judge
2023-07-14T22:18:06Z
Picodes marked the issue as duplicate of #396
#1 - c4-judge
2023-08-05T22:05:06Z
Picodes marked the issue as satisfactory
🌟 Selected for report: 0xkasper
Also found by: 0xStalin, 0xbepresent, 3docSec, Aymen0909, Co0nan, GREY-HAWK-REACH, Jeiwan, minhtrng, qpzm
163.3108 USDC - $163.31
https://github.com/GenerationSoftware/pt-v5-vault/blob/b1deb5d494c25f885c34c83f014c8a855c5e2749/src/Vault.sol#L988 https://github.com/GenerationSoftware/pt-v5-vault/blob/b1deb5d494c25f885c34c83f014c8a855c5e2749/src/Vault.sol#L480-L482
Anyone can delegate someone elses balance to the sponsorship address, increasing their own likelihood of winning, while voiding the victims chance.
The issue is in the call-chain starting with Vault.sponsor
:
//Vault function sponsor(uint256 _assets, address _receiver) external returns (uint256) { return _sponsor(_assets, _receiver); } function _sponsor(uint256 _assets, address _receiver) internal returns (uint256) { uint256 _shares = deposit(_assets, _receiver); if ( _twabController.delegateOf(address(this), _receiver) != _twabController.SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS() ) { _twabController.sponsor(_receiver); } //TwabController function sponsor(address _from) external { _delegate(msg.sender, _from, SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS); } function _delegate(address _vault, address _from, address _to) internal { address _currentDelegate = _delegateOf(_vault, _from); ... _transferDelegateBalance( _vault, _currentDelegate, _to, uint96(userObservations[_vault][_from].details.balance) );
Essentially anyone can call Vault.sponsor
to deposit any amount of assets (even 0) to any receiver and the TwabController will then re-delegate the whole balance from the current delegate of the receiver to the SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS
.
Manual Review
Sponsoring should be restricted to msg.sender
as receiver
Invalid Validation
#0 - c4-judge
2023-07-14T23:04:49Z
Picodes marked the issue as duplicate of #393
#1 - c4-judge
2023-08-06T10:29:13Z
Picodes marked the issue as satisfactory
🌟 Selected for report: minhtrng
1643.9812 USDC - $1,643.98
An edge case in the TwabController._transferBalance
can cause total balance for a vault account to decrease although it did not actually decrease. This will cause the sum of individual delegateBalances for a vault to be greater than the registered total for that vault. This again will skew the odds in favor of winning a price, causing the reserve to be drained faster over time than intended.
The TwabController._transferBalance
function handles the case incorrectly where _to
is equal to the SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS
. First, assume the _from
address is an address that has a balance and delegates to itself (the default). Then the function will decrease the balance and delegateBalance of _from
. It will also decrease the total balances of the vault account (note that _toDelegate
will be SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS
due to default):
if (_from != address(0)) { bool _isFromDelegate = _fromDelegate == _from; _decreaseBalances(_vault, _from, _amount, _isFromDelegate ? _amount : 0); if (!_isFromDelegate && _fromDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS) { _decreaseBalances(_vault, _fromDelegate, 0, _amount); } if ( _to == address(0) || (_toDelegate == SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS && _fromDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS) ) { _decreaseTotalSupplyBalances( _vault, _to == address(0) ? _amount : 0, (_to == address(0) && _fromDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS) || (_toDelegate == SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS && _fromDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS) ? _amount : 0 ); } }
Then, the balance and delegateBalance of SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS
will be increased by the same amount. This is not supposed to happen in the first place, as this address is not meant to have any balances. However, the issue described under #impact is due to the fact that the total balances of the vault account will not be adjusted, because the condition _toDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS
is not met:
if (_to != address(0)) { bool _isToDelegate = _toDelegate == _to; _increaseBalances(_vault, _to, _amount, _isToDelegate ? _amount : 0); if (!_isToDelegate && _toDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS) { _increaseBalances(_vault, _toDelegate, 0, _amount); } if ( _from == address(0) || (_fromDelegate == SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS && _toDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS) ) { _increaseTotalSupplyBalances( _vault, _from == address(0) ? _amount : 0, (_from == address(0) && _toDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS) || (_fromDelegate == SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS && _toDelegate != SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS) ? _amount : 0 ); } }
The ratio of _userTwab
and _vaultTwabTotalSupply
plays a role when determining a winner in TierCalculationLib.isWinner
and the underlying model assumes the invariant to hold true:
uint256 constrainedRandomNumber = _userSpecificRandomNumber % (_vaultTwabTotalSupply); uint256 winningZone = calculateWinningZone(_userTwab, _vaultContributionFraction, _tierOdds);
If the sum of individual twabs is higher than the sum, there will be more winners than intended, causing the described drainage of the reserve.
Manual Review
Disallow _to
to be SPONSORSHIP_ADDRESS
Invalid Validation
#0 - c4-sponsor
2023-07-20T23:20:48Z
asselstine marked the issue as sponsor confirmed
#1 - c4-judge
2023-08-07T16:14:13Z
Picodes marked the issue as satisfactory
#2 - asselstine
2023-08-17T21:20:55Z