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

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #506 [1695291399781] #552

Closed
c4-judge opened this issue Sep 21, 2023 · 2 comments
Closed

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #506 [1695291399781] #552

c4-judge opened this issue Sep 21, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value duplicate-136 satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards

Comments

@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

Judge has assessed an item in Issue #506 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows:

[L‑01] The admin wont be able to burn rUSDY if the address is blacklisted/sanctioned and not on the allowlist
The burn() function in rUSDY.sol allows the admin to seize rUSDY if the user is not legally allowed to own it. It will first burn the shares and then it will transfer the USDY. The problem is that the user can be blacklisted/sanctioned which will make the tx revert because of _beforeTokenTransfer(). The user also needs to be on the allowlist.

It is very likely that the user will first be blacklisted to prevent him from transferring his assets before they are seized so the admin wont be able to seize the assets because when burning _beforeTokenTransfer() checks if the address is blacklisted/sanctioned or no and reverts.

Impact
The admin wont be able to seize assets from the user and he will have to unblacklist him and maybe put him on the allowlist to do this which can be a problem because the user can quickly transfer his assets when he is not blacklisted.

@c4-judge c4-judge added the 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value label Sep 21, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor Author

kirk-baird marked the issue as duplicate of #136

@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor Author

kirk-baird marked the issue as satisfactory

@c4-judge c4-judge added the satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards label Sep 24, 2023
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 duplicate-136 satisfactory satisfies C4 submission criteria; eligible for awards
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant