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

Attacker can DoS auction as bidder #121

Closed
c4-submissions opened this issue Nov 2, 2023 · 5 comments
Closed

Attacker can DoS auction as bidder #121

c4-submissions opened this issue Nov 2, 2023 · 5 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 duplicate-1785 unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards

Comments

@c4-submissions
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-10-nextgen/blob/8b518196629faa37eae39736837b24926fd3c07c/smart-contracts/AuctionDemo.sol#L104-L120

Vulnerability details

Impact

Lets imagine the following scenario. An auction is started and a Alice(a malicious user) sees that. She creates a smart contract with no receive() function. She enters the auction through her smart contract with 1 ether. After that Bob decides to enter the auction with 2 ether. So does Eve with 3 ether. The admin calls claimAuction(). This function is used to send the nft to the highest bidder(in our case Eve). Yes but that function will always revert because of Alice's smart contract and therefore all users funds are lost.

Proof of Concept

This is a well know issue.

Tools Used

Manual Review

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Use pull over push method.

Assessed type

DoS
@c4-submissions c4-submissions 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 Nov 2, 2023
c4-submissions added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 2, 2023
@c4-submissions
Timenov issue #121
7f3741d
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

141345 marked the issue as duplicate of #843

@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

141345 marked the issue as duplicate of #486

@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 5, 2023

alex-ppg marked the issue as not a duplicate

@c4-judge c4-judge reopened this Dec 5, 2023
@c4-judge c4-judge closed this as completed Dec 5, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 5, 2023

alex-ppg marked the issue as duplicate of #1785

@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 8, 2023

alex-ppg marked the issue as unsatisfactory:
Out of scope

@c4-judge c4-judge added the unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards label Dec 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
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-1785 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
@c4-judge @c4-pre-sort @c4-submissions