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

NestedFactory.addTokens and withdraw functions require NFT reserve check #199

Open
code423n4 opened this issue Nov 17, 2021 · 0 comments
Open

NestedFactory.addTokens and withdraw functions require NFT reserve check #199

code423n4 opened this issue Nov 17, 2021 · 0 comments
Assignees
@maximebrugel
Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")

Comments

@code423n4
Copy link
Contributor

Handle

hyh

Vulnerability details

Impact

NFT token operations will fail if wrong reserve is used.

Proof of Concept

NestedFactory reserve is used in addtokens and withdraw function for a given NFT, but the NFT to reserve contract correspondence isn't checked.

addtokens:
https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-nested/blob/main/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L119

withdraw:
https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-11-nested/blob/main/contracts/NestedFactory.sol#L241

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Add the require(nestedRecords.getAssetReserve(_nftId) == address(reserve), "...") check in the beginning of the functions.
@code423n4 code423n4 added 1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working labels Nov 17, 2021
code423n4 added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 17, 2021
@code423n4
hyh issue #199
175ab3b
@maximebrugel maximebrugel added the sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity") label Nov 22, 2021
@maximebrugel maximebrugel mentioned this issue Dec 2, 2021
Merged
@maximebrugel maximebrugel self-assigned this Dec 2, 2021
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@maximebrugel maximebrugel

Labels
1 (Low Risk) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with comments bug Something isn't working sponsor confirmed Sponsor agrees this is a problem and intends to fix it (OK to use w/ "disagree with severity")
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
2 participants
@maximebrugel @code423n4