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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Jump to bottom

TreasuryManager.approveToken ERC20 missing return value check #77

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 31, 2022 · 2 comments
Closed

TreasuryManager.approveToken ERC20 missing return value check #77

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 31, 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

PranavG

Vulnerability details

The approveToken function in TreasuryManager contract performs an ERC20.approve() call but does not check the success return value.
Some tokens do not revert if the approval failed but return false instead.

Impact

Tokens that don't actually perform the approve and return false are still counted as a correct approve.

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Use OpenZeppelin’s SafeERC20 library that can handle tokens that do not revert on failed approval.
@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 31, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 31, 2022
@code423n4
PranavG issue #77
021944e
@jeffywu jeffywu added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Feb 6, 2022
@jeffywu
Copy link
Collaborator

jeffywu commented Feb 6, 2022

Duplicate #146

@jeffywu jeffywu mentioned this issue Feb 6, 2022
Closed
@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
Assignees
No one assigned
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
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@jeffywu @pauliax @code423n4 @CloudEllie