Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 25/08/2022
Pot Size: $75,000 USDC
Total HM: 35
Participants: 147
Period: 7 days
Judge: 0xean
Total Solo HM: 15
Id: 156
League: ETH
Rank: 89/147
Findings: 2
Award: $86.89
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
🌟 Selected for report: zzzitron
Also found by: 0x040, 0x1f8b, 0x52, 0x85102, 0xDjango, 0xNazgul, 0xNineDec, 0xSky, 0xSmartContract, 0xkatana, 8olidity, Aymen0909, Bahurum, BipinSah, Bnke0x0, CRYP70, CertoraInc, Ch_301, Chandr, Chom, CodingNameKiki, Deivitto, DimSon, Diraco, ElKu, EthLedger, Funen, GalloDaSballo, Guardian, IllIllI, JansenC, Jeiwan, Lambda, LeoS, Margaret, MasterCookie, PPrieditis, PaludoX0, Picodes, PwnPatrol, RaymondFam, ReyAdmirado, Rohan16, Rolezn, Ruhum, Sm4rty, StevenL, The_GUILD, TomJ, Tomo, Trust, Waze, __141345__, ajtra, ak1, apostle0x01, aviggiano, bin2chen, bobirichman, brgltd, c3phas, cRat1st0s, carlitox477, cccz, ch13fd357r0y3r, cloudjunky, cryptphi, csanuragjain, d3e4, datapunk, delfin454000, devtooligan, dipp, djxploit, durianSausage, eierina, enckrish, erictee, fatherOfBlocks, gogo, grGred, hansfriese, hyh, ignacio, indijanc, itsmeSTYJ, ladboy233, lukris02, martin, medikko, mics, natzuu, ne0n, nxrblsrpr, okkothejawa, oyc_109, p_crypt0, pfapostol, prasantgupta52, rajatbeladiya, rbserver, reassor, ret2basic, robee, rokinot, rvierdiiev, shenwilly, sikorico, sorrynotsorry, tnevler, tonisives, w0Lfrum, yixxas
54.3128 DAI - $54.31
ERC20 operations can be unsafe due to different implementations and vulnerabilities in the standard.
It is therefore recommended to always either use OpenZeppelin's SafeERC20
library or at least to wrap each operation in a require
statement.
To circumvent ERC20's approve
functions race-condition vulnerability use OpenZeppelin's SafeERC20
library's safe{Increase|Decrease}Allowance
functions.
In case the vulnerability is of no danger for your implementation, provide enough documentation explaining the reasonings.
VOTES.transferFrom(msg.sender, address(this), userVotes);
VOTES.transferFrom(address(this), msg.sender, userVotes);
Avoid floating pragmas for non-library contracts.
While floating pragmas make sense for libraries to allow them to be included with multiple different versions of applications, it may be a security risk for application implementations.
A known vulnerable compiler version may accidentally be selected or security tools might fall-back to an older compiler version ending up checking a different EVM compilation that is ultimately deployed on the blockchain.
It is recommended to pin to a concrete compiler version.
pragma solidity >=0.8.0;
pragma solidity >=0.8.0;
pragma solidity >=0.8.0;
Lock the pragma version to the same version as used in the other contracts and also consider known bugs (https://github.com/ethereum/solidity/releases) for the compiler version that is chosen.
Pragma statements can be allowed to float when a contract is intended for consumption by other developers, as in the case with contracts in a library or EthPM package. Otherwise, the developer would need to manually update the pragma in order to compile it locally.
The usage of deprecated library functions should be discouraged.
This issue is mostly related to OpenZeppelin libraries.
ohm.safeApprove(address(MINTR), type(uint256).max);
ohm.safeApprove(address(MINTR), type(uint256).max);
use SafeERC20 for IERC20; // ... IERC20(token).safeIncreaseAllowance(spender, value);
🌟 Selected for report: pfapostol
Also found by: 0x040, 0x1f8b, 0x85102, 0xDjango, 0xNazgul, 0xNineDec, 0xSmartContract, 0xkatana, Amithuddar, Aymen0909, Bnke0x0, CertoraInc, Chandr, CodingNameKiki, Deivitto, Dionysus, Diraco, ElKu, Fitraldys, Funen, GalloDaSballo, Guardian, IllIllI, JC, JansenC, Jeiwan, LeoS, Metatron, Noah3o6, RaymondFam, ReyAdmirado, Rohan16, RoiEvenHaim, Rolezn, Ruhum, Saintcode_, Shishigami, Sm4rty, SooYa, StevenL, Tagir2003, The_GUILD, TomJ, Tomo, Waze, __141345__, ajtra, apostle0x01, aviggiano, bobirichman, brgltd, c3phas, cRat1st0s, carlitox477, cccz, ch0bu, chrisdior4, d3e4, delfin454000, djxploit, durianSausage, erictee, exolorkistis, fatherOfBlocks, gogo, grGred, hyh, ignacio, jag, karanctf, kris, ladboy233, lukris02, m_Rassska, martin, medikko, natzuu, ne0n, newfork01, oyc_109, peiw, rbserver, ret2basic, robee, rokinot, rvierdiiev, sikorico, simon135, tnevler, zishansami
32.5835 DAI - $32.58
++I
COSTS LESS GAS COMPARED TO I++
OR I += 1
(SAME FOR --I
VS I--
OR I -= 1
)Pre-increments and pre-decrements are cheaper.
For a uint256 i
variable, the following is true with the Optimizer enabled at 10k:
Increment:
i += 1
is the most expensive formi++
costs 6 gas less than i += 1
++i
costs 5 gas less than i++
(11 gas less than i += 1
)Decrement:
i -= 1
is the most expensive formi--
costs 11 gas less than i -= 1
--i
costs 5 gas less than i--
(16 gas less than i -= 1
)decimals++;
Caching the array length outside a loop saves reading it on each iteration, as long as the array's length is not changed during the loop.
for (uint256 step; step < instructions.length; ) {
Background info
https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-badgerzaps-findings/issues/36