Platform: Code4rena
Start Date: 20/09/2022
Pot Size: $30,000 USDC
Total HM: 12
Participants: 198
Period: 3 days
Judge: 0xean
Total Solo HM: 2
Id: 164
League: ETH
Rank: 32/198
Findings: 3
Award: $246.04
🌟 Selected for report: 0
🚀 Solo Findings: 0
Unfair loss of tokens for the receiver.
Vesting is used by employers to align incentives in startups and prevent employees from leaving the company if they want to get the vested tokens. This is why a revoke function was included.
From the documentation : "However, due to the nature of vesting, e.g. employee token vesting, our vesting contract is deliberately designed to allow admin revocation in the circumstances of early employment termination (before the end of vesting period specified)."
The current implementation of revoke is flawed since it disallows the receiver from getting tokens that were already unlocked. Admin revokation in case of early termination should be possible but the employee should be able to withdraw his tokens that were already released. If the employee didn't call the withdraw() function before termination he won't be able to get these (already released) tokens.
The revoke feature should only revoke future tokens that weren't still released. This is how vestings work, if you leave early you only get what was already released but not 0.
In the revoke function make a withdraw on behalf of the receiver before revoking. In that way, he will get his released tokens and be revoked from future releases.
#0 - indijanc
2022-09-24T17:14:43Z
Duplicate of #475
#1 - 0xean
2022-09-24T18:26:46Z
closing as dupe
🌟 Selected for report: AkshaySrivastav
Also found by: 0v3rf10w, 0x040, 0x1f8b, 0x4non, 0x5rings, 0x85102, 0xA5DF, 0xDecorativePineapple, 0xNazgul, 0xSky, 0xSmartContract, 0xbepresent, 0xf15ers, 0xmatt, 2997ms, Aeros, Aymen0909, B2, Bahurum, Bnke0x0, CertoraInc, Chom, ChristianKuri, CodingNameKiki, Deivitto, Diana, Diraco, Dravee, ElKu, Funen, IllIllI, JC, JLevick, JohnSmith, JohnnyTime, KIntern_NA, Lambda, Margaret, MasterCookie, OptimismSec, RaymondFam, Respx, ReyAdmirado, RockingMiles, Rohan16, Rolezn, Ruhum, RustyRabbit, Sm4rty, SooYa, StevenL, TomJ, Tomo, V_B, Waze, Yiko, __141345__, a12jmx, ajtra, ak1, async, ayeslick, aysha, berndartmueller, bin2chen, bobirichman, brgltd, bulej93, c3phas, carrotsmuggler, cccz, ch13fd357r0y3r, chatch, cryptostellar5, cryptphi, csanuragjain, d3e4, datapunk, delfin454000, dic0de, djxploit, durianSausage, eighty, erictee, exd0tpy, fatherOfBlocks, gogo, got_targ, hansfriese, ignacio, ikbkln, indijanc, innertia, joestakey, karanctf, ladboy233, leosathya, lukris02, martin, medikko, millersplanet, nalus, natzuu, neko_nyaa, neumo, obront, oyc_109, pcarranzav, peanuts, pedr02b2, pedroais, peiw, peritoflores, prasantgupta52, rajatbeladiya, rbserver, reassor, ret2basic, rokinot, romand, rotcivegaf, rvierdiiev, sach1r0, seyni, sikorico, slowmoses, sorrynotsorry, supernova, tibthecat, tnevler, ubermensch, yongskiws, zzykxx, zzzitron
18.8574 USDC - $18.86
Non critical issues :
Comments with development questions are left in the repo. Example : https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-vtvl/blob/f68b7f3e61dad0d873b5b5a1e8126b839afeab5f/contracts/VTVLVesting.sol#L266
Lack of important events when withdrawing tokens : It's a best practice to emit an event when value is transferred. https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-vtvl/blob/f68b7f3e61dad0d873b5b5a1e8126b839afeab5f/contracts/VTVLVesting.sol#L446
🌟 Selected for report: IllIllI
Also found by: 0v3rf10w, 0x040, 0x1f8b, 0x4non, 0x85102, 0xA5DF, 0xDanielC, 0xNazgul, 0xSmartContract, 0xbepresent, 0xc0ffEE, 0xsam, 2997ms, AkshaySrivastav, Amithuddar, Atarpara, Aymen0909, B2, Bnke0x0, CertoraInc, Chom, ChristianKuri, CodingNameKiki, Deivitto, Diana, DimitarDimitrov, Diraco, Funen, JC, JLevick, JohnSmith, Junnon, KIntern_NA, Lambda, MasterCookie, Matin, Noah3o6, Ocean_Sky, OptimismSec, RaymondFam, Respx, ReyAdmirado, RockingMiles, Rohan16, Rolezn, Ruhum, Saintcode_, Satyam_Sharma, Sm4rty, SnowMan, SooYa, Sta1400, StevenL, Tadashi, Tagir2003, TomJ, Tomio, Tomo, V_B, Waze, WilliamAmbrozic, Yiko, __141345__, a12jmx, adriro, ajtra, ak1, async, aysha, beardofginger, bobirichman, brgltd, bulej93, c3phas, carrotsmuggler, caventa, ch0bu, cryptostellar5, cryptphi, csanuragjain, d3e4, delfin454000, dharma09, djxploit, durianSausage, eighty, emrekocak, erictee, exd0tpy, fatherOfBlocks, francoHacker, gianganhnguyen, gogo, got_targ, hxzy, ignacio, ikbkln, imare, indijanc, jag, jpserrat, karanctf, ladboy233, leosathya, lucacez, lukris02, m9800, malinariy, martin, medikko, mics, millersplanet, mrpathfindr, nalus, natzuu, neko_nyaa, oyc_109, pauliax, peanuts, pedroais, peiw, pfapostol, prasantgupta52, rbserver, ret2basic, rokinot, rotcivegaf, rvierdiiev, sach1r0, samruna, seyni, slowmoses, subtle77, supernova, tgolding55, tibthecat, tnevler, w0Lfrum, yaemsobak, zishansami
9.086 USDC - $9.09
Use of unchecked math at multiple instances can save a lot of gas. This doesn't propose any risks since variables are already being checked.
AVG gas before unchecked arithmetic = 3740739 AVG gas after = 3677691
Instances :
1- https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-vtvl/blob/f68b7f3e61dad0d873b5b5a1e8126b839afeab5f/contracts/VTVLVesting.sol#L301 This addition can't overflow since allocated amount is capped by token balance in line 295
2- https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-vtvl/blob/f68b7f3e61dad0d873b5b5a1e8126b839afeab5f/contracts/VTVLVesting.sol#L161 Same reason as before, capped by token balance
3- https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-vtvl/blob/f68b7f3e61dad0d873b5b5a1e8126b839afeab5f/contracts/VTVLVesting.sol#L381 Both operations, same reason
This block could use unchecked arithmetic since :
we know _referenceTs > _claim.startTimestamp so substraction won't underflow
currentVestingDurationSecs / _claim.releaseIntervalSecs) * _claim.releaseIntervalSecs : can't overflow since it's a truncation
_claim.linearVestAmount * truncatedCurrentVestingDurationSecs / finalVestingDurationSecs : can't overflow since linear vestAmount is capped by the balance of tokens and truncatedCurrentVestingDuration is a truncation of refereceTS-startTimestamp with referenceTS = to block.timestamp in a valid call.
5- https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-vtvl/blob/f68b7f3e61dad0d873b5b5a1e8126b839afeab5f/contracts/VTVLVesting.sol#L429 we know final best amount is bigger so no underflow
6- https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-vtvl/blob/f68b7f3e61dad0d873b5b5a1e8126b839afeab5f/contracts/VTVLVesting.sol#L433 amount remaining cant be bigger than total allocation
++i cheaper than i++ Instances : 1- https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-09-vtvl/blob/f68b7f3e61dad0d873b5b5a1e8126b839afeab5f/contracts/VTVLVesting.sol#L353