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

Inconsistent use of _msgSender() #169

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

Inconsistent use of _msgSender() #169

code423n4 opened this issue Nov 17, 2021 · 2 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working invalid This doesn't seem right sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

WatchPug

Vulnerability details

Direct use of msg.sender vs internal call of _msgSender().

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-nested/blob/f646002b692ca5fa3631acfff87dda897541cf41/contracts/operators/ZeroEx/ZeroExOperator.sol#L14-L18

constructor(address swapTarget) {
    address zeroxExStorage = Create2.deploy(0, bytes32("nested.zeroex.operator"), type(ZeroExStorage).creationCode);
    ZeroExStorage(zeroxExStorage).updatesSwapTarget(swapTarget);
    ZeroExStorage(zeroxExStorage).transferOwnership(msg.sender);
}
@code423n4 code423n4 added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working labels Nov 17, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 17, 2021
@maximebrugel maximebrugel added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label Nov 19, 2021
@maximebrugel
Copy link
Collaborator

There is no implementation of a meta transaction mechanism in the ZeroExOperator constructor

@maximebrugel maximebrugel added sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue and removed sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") labels Nov 26, 2021
@alcueca
Copy link
Collaborator

alcueca commented Dec 3, 2021

Dispute accepted.

@alcueca alcueca added invalid This doesn't seem right and removed 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation labels Dec 3, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
bug Something isn't working invalid This doesn't seem right sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants