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

approve return value is ignored #30

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 27, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

approve return value is ignored #30

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 27, 2022 · 2 comments
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

robee

Vulnerability details

Some tokens don't correctly implement the EIP20 standard and their approve function returns void instead of a success boolean.
Calling these functions with the correct EIP20 function signatures will always revert.
Tokens that don't correctly implement the latest EIP20 spec, like USDT, will be unusable in the mentioned contracts as they revert the transaction because of the missing return value.
We recommend using OpenZeppelin’s SafeERC20 versions with the safeApprove function that handle the return value check as well as non-standard-compliant tokens.
The list of occurrences in format (solidity file, line number, actual line)

    TreasuryManager.sol, 78, IERC20(token).approve(ASSET_PROXY, amount); 
@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 Jan 27, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 27, 2022
@jeffywu
Copy link
Collaborator

jeffywu commented Feb 6, 2022

Duplicate #77

@jeffywu jeffywu added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Feb 6, 2022
@pauliax pauliax added 0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Feb 12, 2022
@pauliax
Copy link
Collaborator

pauliax commented Feb 12, 2022

A duplicate of #115

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
0 (Non-critical) Code style, clarity, syntax, versioning, off-chain monitoring (events etc), exclude gas optimisation bug Something isn't working duplicate This issue or pull request already exists
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants