Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

removeOperator() Wrong implementation #158

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Nov 17, 2021 · 2 comments
Closed

removeOperator() Wrong implementation #158

code423n4 opened this issue Nov 17, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

WatchPug

Vulnerability details

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-nested/blob/f646002b692ca5fa3631acfff87dda897541cf41/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L79-L86

function removeOperator(bytes32 operator) external override onlyOwner {
    uint256 i = 0;
    while (operators[i] != operator) {
        i++;
    }
    require(i > 0, "NestedFactory::removeOperator: Cant remove non-existent operator");
    delete operators[i];
}

Unable to delete operator at index 0 because it will revet at L84.

Recommendation

Change to:

function removeOperator(bytes32 operator) external override onlyOwner {
    uint256 length = operators.length;
    for (uint256 i = 0; i < length; i++) {
        if (operators[i] == operator) {
            delete operators[i];
            return;
        }
    }
    revert("NestedFactory::removeOperator: Cant remove non-existent operator");
}
@code423n4 code423n4 added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value bug Something isn't working labels Nov 17, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 17, 2021
@maximebrugel maximebrugel added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Nov 17, 2021
@maximebrugel
Copy link
Collaborator

Duplicated : #58

@alcueca
Copy link
Collaborator

alcueca commented Dec 3, 2021

Taking #220 instead

@alcueca alcueca added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Dec 3, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants