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

Steal from Sponsor Vault #99

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jun 15, 2022 · 1 comment
Closed

Steal from Sponsor Vault #99

code423n4 opened this issue Jun 15, 2022 · 1 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

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-connext/blob/main/contracts/contracts/core/connext/facets/BridgeFacet.sol#L279

Vulnerability details

Impact

A approved realyer can steal from sponsor vault by self initiating transaction via xcall with little to no relayer fees. Then Relayer can himself execute the transaction and claim the fees which he gave and also from the sponsor vault. Thus stealing from sponsor vault

Proof of Concept

  1. Relayer makes xcall using destination domain as his own or some other where he is the approved relayer and also have some sponsor vault

  2. Since relayer fees on this transaction is very low so no relayer would be interested in taking this transaction.

  3. The malicious Relayer simply execute his own transaction due to non competetion and also in process obtains the fees from sponsor vault for his own transaction

Recommended Mitigation Steps

There should be a min cap for relayer fees

@code423n4 code423n4 added 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly bug Something isn't working labels Jun 15, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jun 15, 2022
@LayneHaber
Copy link
Collaborator

Duplicate of #234

@LayneHaber LayneHaber marked this as a duplicate of #234 Jun 24, 2022
@LayneHaber LayneHaber added the duplicate This issue or pull request already exists label Jun 24, 2022
@0xleastwood 0xleastwood added 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value and removed 3 (High Risk) Assets can be stolen/lost/compromised directly labels Aug 15, 2022
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