Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 15/06/2022
Pot Size: $35,000 USDC
Total HM: 1
Participants: 36
Period: 3 days
Judge: Jack the Pug
Total Solo HM: 1
Id: 137
League: ETH
Rank: 14/36
Findings: 2
Award: $116.54
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
🌟 Selected for report: 0xNazgul
Also found by: 0xDjango, 0xFar5eer, 0xf15ers, BowTiedWardens, Chom, Dravee, IllIllI, Meera, MiloTruck, PierrickGT, TerrierLover, _Adam, cccz, codexploder, cryptphi, delfin454000, fatherOfBlocks, hansfriese, joestakey, oyc_109, simon135
81.8216 USDC - $81.82
the owner can withdraw all tokens from NestedFactory.sol
with no timelock
To give more trust to users: this function should be put behind a timelock.
constants should be declared rather than use magic numbers
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L264 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L378 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L443
this could happen when exitFees
has not been initialized yet by calling setExitFees()
, exitFees
will be zero which makes amountFees
zero
for small amounts of amountBought
, amountFees
could round down to zero due to division by 10000
fees can be set to 100% with no time lock
a malicious admin can front run transactions by setting fee to 100% to steal funds
recommend adding a timelock to this function
Recommend considering implementing a two step process where the owner nominates an account and the nominated account needs to call an acceptOwnership() function for the transfer of ownership to fully succeed. This ensures the nominated EOA account is a valid and active account.
Checking addresses against zero-address during initialization or during setting is a security best-practice. However, such checks are missing in address variable initializations/changes in many places.
Impact: Allowing zero-addresses will lead to contract reverts and force redeployments if there are no setters for such address variables.
#0 - obatirou
2022-06-24T12:01:59Z
There is a timelock, see ownership documentation in readme
#1 - Yashiru
2022-06-24T13:14:59Z
Duplicated of #76 at 5. constants should be defined rather than using magic numbers
#2 - Yashiru
2022-06-24T14:51:31Z
Duplicated of #61 at 2. Missing address(0) checks
🌟 Selected for report: IllIllI
Also found by: 0x1f8b, 0xKitsune, 0xNazgul, 0xkatana, Chom, ElKu, JC, Meera, MiloTruck, Picodes, PierrickGT, SooYa, TerrierLover, UnusualTurtle, Waze, _Adam, asutorufos, c3phas, delfin454000, fatherOfBlocks, joestakey, minhquanym, oyc_109, robee, sach1r0, simon135
34.7201 USDC - $34.72
Uninitialized variables are assigned with the types default value.
Explicitly initializing a variable with it's default value costs unnecesary gas.
Suggest not initializing the for loop counter to 0.
An array’s length should be cached to save gas in for-loops
Reading array length at each iteration of the loop takes 6 gas (3 for mload and 3 to place memory_offset) in the stack.
Caching the array length in the stack saves around 3 gas per iteration.
Suggest storing the array’s length in a variable before the for-loop, and use it instead:
++i costs less gas compared to i++
++i costs less gas compared to i++ for unsigned integer, as pre-increment is cheaper (about 5 gas per iteration)
Suggest using ++i instead of i++ to increment the value of an uint variable.
Increments can be unchecked
In Solidity 0.8+, there’s a default overflow check on unsigned integers. It’s possible to uncheck this in for-loops and save some gas at each iteration, but at the cost of some code readability, as this uncheck cannot be made inline.
taking all of the above, the recommended format for gas savings is
for (uint256 i; i < numIterations;) { // ... unchecked { ++i; } }
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L124 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L136 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L196 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L256 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L315 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L333 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L369 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L412 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L651 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/OperatorResolver.sol#L40 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/OperatorResolver.sol#L60 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/OperatorResolver.sol#L75 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/abstracts/MixinOperatorResolver.sol#L37 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/abstracts/MixinOperatorResolver.sol#L56 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/operators/Beefy/BeefyVaultOperator.sol#L18 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/operators/Beefy/lp/BeefyZapBiswapLPVaultOperator.sol#L27 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/operators/Beefy/lp/BeefyZapUniswapLPVaultOperator.sol#L27 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/operators/Yearn/YearnCurveVaultOperator.sol#L42 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/governance/TimelockControllerEmergency.sol#L84 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/governance/TimelockControllerEmergency.sol#L89 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/governance/TimelockControllerEmergency.sol#L234 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/governance/TimelockControllerEmergency.sol#L324 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/governance/scripts/OperatorScripts.sol#L67 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/blob/b4a153c943d54755711a2f7b80cbbf3a5bb49d76/contracts/governance/scripts/OperatorScripts.sol#L80
Gas can be saved by using >> operator instead of dividing by 2
use >> operator
#0 - Yashiru
2022-06-24T13:32:43Z
Duplicated of #89 at Use Shift Right/Left instead of Division/Multiplication
#1 - Yashiru
2022-06-24T15:23:00Z
Already surfaced in previous audit and mentioned in README.md
Already surfaced in previous audit and mentioned in README.md
Already surfaced in previous audit here.
Already surfaced in previous audit here.