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

Centralization Issue OR Owner can renounce Ownership #2

Closed
code423n4 opened this issue Jan 4, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed

Centralization Issue OR Owner can renounce Ownership #2

code423n4 opened this issue Jan 4, 2023 · 3 comments
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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) edited-by-warden sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

code423n4 commented Jan 4, 2023 •
edited
Loading

Lines of code

SmartAccount.sol#L109

Vulnerability details

Typically, the contract’s owner is the account that deploys the contract. As a result, the owner is able to perform certain privileged activities.

This can represent a certain risk if the ownership is renounced for any other reason than by design. Renouncing ownership will leave the contract without an owner, thereby removing any functionality that is only available to the owner.

Moreover,Hacked Owner or Malicious Owner can immediately steal all assets on the platform, which accepts transfer requests from Exchange. [SmartAccount.sol#L449 ]

We recommend to either reimplement the function to disable it or to clearly specify if it is part of the contract design.
@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 4, 2023
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Jan 4, 2023
@code423n4
Gowtham_Ponnana issue #2
d947402
@code423n4 code423n4 mentioned this issue Jan 7, 2023
Open
@c4-judge c4-judge added the unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards label Jan 17, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

gzeon-c4 marked the issue as unsatisfactory:
Insufficient quality

@c4-sponsor
Copy link

livingrockrises marked the issue as sponsor disputed

@c4-sponsor c4-sponsor added the sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue label Jan 19, 2023
@c4-sponsor
Copy link

livingrockrises marked the issue as disagree with severity

@c4-sponsor c4-sponsor added the disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) label Jan 19, 2023
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees
No one assigned
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 disagree with severity Sponsor confirms validity, but disagrees with warden’s risk assessment (sponsor explain in comments) edited-by-warden sponsor disputed Sponsor cannot duplicate the issue, or otherwise disagrees this is an issue 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
@code423n4 @c4-judge @c4-sponsor