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

MixinOperatorResolver.sol#isResolverCached() become malfunctioning when an operator is removed #159

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Nov 17, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
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 duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

WatchPug

Vulnerability details

When an operator is removed and rebuildCache() is called, isResolverCached() should return true. It returns false in the current implemenbtation.

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-nested/blob/f646002b692ca5fa3631acfff87dda897541cf41/contracts/MixinOperatorResolver.sol#L45-L56

/// @notice Check the state of addressCache
function isResolverCached() external view returns (bool) {
    bytes32[] memory requiredAddresses = resolverAddressesRequired();
    for (uint256 i = 0; i < requiredAddresses.length; i++) {
        bytes32 name = requiredAddresses[i];
        // false if our cache is invalid or if the resolver doesn't have the required address
        if (resolver.getAddress(name) != addressCache[name] || addressCache[name] == address(0)) {
            return false;
        }
    }
    return true;
}

Beacuse when an operator is removed, requiredAddresses will includes empty items, so that addressCache[name] will be address(0), and return false.

Recommendation

Change to:

/// @notice Check the state of addressCache
function isResolverCached() external view returns (bool) {
    bytes32[] memory requiredAddresses = resolverAddressesRequired();
    for (uint256 i = 0; i < requiredAddresses.length; i++) {
        bytes32 name = requiredAddresses[i];
        // false if our cache is invalid or if the resolver doesn't have the required address
        if (resolver.getAddress(name) != addressCache[name]) {
            return false;
        }
    }
    return true;
}
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments 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 22, 2021
@maximebrugel
Copy link
Collaborator

Same issue as #139 but not pointing removeOperator.
The issue will be fixed in #58, so i see it as a replicate.

@alcueca
Copy link
Collaborator

alcueca commented Dec 3, 2021

Duplicate of #139, then

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

No branches or pull requests

3 participants