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

Token hash will never be set incase of a failed randomness callback #866

Closed
c4-submissions opened this issue Nov 10, 2023 · 3 comments
Closed
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-1464 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/NextGenCore.sol#L299

Vulnerability details

Impact

In any case if the chainlink or ArrngConsumer fails to callback the fulfillRandomWords the token hash for that token will never be set.

Proof of Concept

When minting a new token the randomness request is also called in the process and that request is callback by the
randomizerContract for the particular collection if the collection's randomizerContract is chainlink or arrng and if they ever fail to callback the setTokenHash function will never be called for the minted token and the token hash will never be set for that token.

Tools Used

manual

Recommended Mitigation Steps

add a function to manually add a token hash if it is not set in a given time. Or split the request randomness and the minting of token and give another function where only the token owner can call to ask for randomness if the first one failed.

Assessed type

Oracle

@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 10, 2023
c4-submissions added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 10, 2023
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

141345 marked the issue as duplicate of #1464

@c4-judge c4-judge added the unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards label Dec 6, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 6, 2023

alex-ppg marked the issue as unsatisfactory:
Invalid

1 similar comment
@c4-judge
Copy link

c4-judge commented Dec 9, 2023

alex-ppg marked the issue as unsatisfactory:
Invalid

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-1464 unsatisfactory does not satisfy C4 submission criteria; not eligible for awards
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants