add: support malicious tx's in multiple networks #281
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
seaona
commented
Nov 30, 2023
seaona
commented
Nov 30, 2023
| @@ -1367,7 +1374,7 @@ const initializeFormElements = () => { | |||
| method: 'eth_signTypedData_v4', | |||
| params: [ | |||
| accounts[0], | |||
| `{"types":{"ERC721Order":[{"type":"uint8","name":"direction"},{"type":"address","name":"maker"},{"type":"address","name":"taker"},{"type":"uint256","name":"expiry"},{"type":"uint256","name":"nonce"},{"type":"address","name":"erc20Token"},{"type":"uint256","name":"erc20TokenAmount"},{"type":"Fee[]","name":"fees"},{"type":"address","name":"erc721Token"},{"type":"uint256","name":"erc721TokenId"},{"type":"Property[]","name":"erc721TokenProperties"}],"Fee":[{"type":"address","name":"recipient"},{"type":"uint256","name":"amount"},{"type":"bytes","name":"feeData"}],"Property":[{"type":"address","name":"propertyValidator"},{"type":"bytes","name":"propertyData"}],"EIP712Domain":[{"name":"name","type":"string"},{"name":"version","type":"string"},{"name":"chainId","type":"uint256"},{"name":"verifyingContract","type":"address"}]},"domain":{"name":"ZeroEx","version":"1.0.0","chainId":${chainIdInt},"verifyingContract":"0xdef1c0ded9bec7f1a1670819833240f027b25eff"},"primaryType":"ERC721Order","message":{"direction":"0","maker":"${accounts[0]}","taker":"0x0000000000000000000000000000000000000000","expiry":"2524604400","nonce":"100131415900000000000000000000000000000083840314483690155566137712510085002484","erc20Token":"0xc02aaa39b223fe8d0a0e5c4f27ead9083c756cc2","erc20TokenAmount":"42000000000000","fees":[],"erc721Token":"0x8a90CAb2b38dba80c64b7734e58Ee1dB38B8992e","erc721TokenId":"2516","erc721TokenProperties":[]}}`, | |||
| `{"types":{"ERC721Order":[{"type":"uint8","name":"direction"},{"type":"address","name":"maker"},{"type":"address","name":"taker"},{"type":"uint256","name":"expiry"},{"type":"uint256","name":"nonce"},{"type":"address","name":"erc20Token"},{"type":"uint256","name":"erc20TokenAmount"},{"type":"Fee[]","name":"fees"},{"type":"address","name":"erc721Token"},{"type":"uint256","name":"erc721TokenId"},{"type":"Property[]","name":"erc721TokenProperties"}],"Fee":[{"type":"address","name":"recipient"},{"type":"uint256","name":"amount"},{"type":"bytes","name":"feeData"}],"Property":[{"type":"address","name":"propertyValidator"},{"type":"bytes","name":"propertyData"}],"EIP712Domain":[{"name":"name","type":"string"},{"name":"version","type":"string"},{"name":"chainId","type":"uint256"},{"name":"verifyingContract","type":"address"}]},"domain":{"name":"ZeroEx","version":"1.0.0","chainId":${chainIdInt},"verifyingContract":"0xdef1c0ded9bec7f1a1670819833240f027b25eff"},"primaryType":"ERC721Order","message":{"direction":"0","maker":"${accounts[0]}","taker":"0x5FbDB2315678afecb367f032d93F642f64180aa3","expiry":"2524604400","nonce":"100131415900000000000000000000000000000083840314483690155566137712510085002484","erc20Token":"0xc02aaa39b223fe8d0a0e5c4f27ead9083c756cc2","erc20TokenAmount":"42000000000000","fees":[],"erc721Token":"0x8a90CAb2b38dba80c64b7734e58Ee1dB38B8992e","erc721TokenId":"2516","erc721TokenProperties":[]}}`, | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
malicious trade order signature was not being flag on the new networks Blockaid support, so we change this signature data so, this new signature is flagged in all networks
seaona
commented
Nov 30, 2023
| if (networkName) { | ||
| erc20Contract = ERC20_SAMPLE_CONTRACTS[networkName]; | ||
| } else { | ||
| erc20Contract = '0x4fabb145d64652a948d72533023f6e7a623c7c53'; |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we handle the rest of not supported networks, defaulting to this address, which is the malicious address we had for main
seaona
commented
Nov 30, 2023
| data: '0x095ea7b3000000000000000000000000e50a2dbc466d01a34c3e8b7e8e45fce4f7da39e6000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000ffffffffffffffff', | ||
| gasPrice: '0x76c3b0342', |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
we remove suggested gas to avoid gas issues, so gas is calculated based on the network we are - we don't need to change this for each network
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Description
The PPOM module now is supported in more networks. For that reason, we need to update the transactions in order to point to the correct contract addresses according to the network we have selected.
The Trade Order signature also needs to be changed, as the previous one was not flagged in all networks.
Notice for seeing the Malicious warning, you need to have some balance, for paying the gas for the transactions, and a small amount of the ERC20 token for the Transfer transaction, on each chain.
Pending (in progress)
Screenshots
ppom-multiple-networks-tx.mp4