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

ERC20Upgradeable.sol and ERC4626Upgradeable.sol do not define a private uint256[] __gap #127

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Dec 25, 2022 · 5 comments
Closed

ERC20Upgradeable.sol and ERC4626Upgradeable.sol do not define a private uint256[] __gap #127

code423n4 opened this issue Dec 25, 2022 · 5 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue grade-c QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-gogopool/blob/main/contracts/contract/tokens/upgradeable/ERC20Upgradeable.sol#L206
https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-12-gogopool/blob/main/contracts/contract/tokens/upgradeable/ERC4626Upgradeable.sol#L179

Vulnerability details

Impact

If a gap is not defined, then a storage shift occurs if a new storage variable is added.

Check https://github.com/OpenZeppelin/openzeppelin-contracts-upgradeable/blob/master/contracts/token/ERC20/ERC20Upgradeable.sol for an example.

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Add uint256[50] private __gap; at the end of the contracts.
@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 Dec 25, 2022
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 25, 2022
@code423n4
0x73696d616f issue #127
027fc11
C4-Staff added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 6, 2023
@C4-Staff
original risk added for issue #127
95ddd8c
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Jan 8, 2023

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as duplicate of #300

@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Jan 8, 2023
@c4-judge c4-judge reopened this Feb 2, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 2, 2023

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as not a duplicate

@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 2, 2023

GalloDaSballo changed the severity to QA (Quality Assurance)

@c4-judge c4-judge added downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Feb 2, 2023
c4-judge added a commit that referenced this issue Feb 2, 2023
@c4-judge
Q-report created from downgraded finding #127
7b5e821
@GalloDaSballo
Copy link

L

@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Feb 8, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

c4-judge commented Feb 8, 2023

GalloDaSballo marked the issue as grade-c

@c4-judge c4-judge added grade-c unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards labels Feb 8, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
Labels
bug Something isn't working downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue grade-c QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
3 participants
@GalloDaSballo @code423n4 @c4-judge