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

Potential Rugpull opportunity with max approval #803

Open
c4-submissions opened this issue Nov 15, 2023 · 4 comments
Open

Potential Rugpull opportunity with max approval #803

c4-submissions opened this issue Nov 15, 2023 · 4 comments
Labels
bug Something isn't working downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue duplicate-70 grade-b insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality Q-06 QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax

Comments

@c4-submissions
Copy link
Contributor

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2023-11-kelp/blob/f751d7594051c0766c7ecd1e68daeb0661e43ee3/src/NodeDelegator.sol#L38

Vulnerability details

Impact

NodeDelegator may approve max to EIGEN_STRATEGY_MANAGER via maxApproveToEigenStrategyManager. Which allows the EIGEN_STRATEGY_MANAGER move all funds.

Proof of Concept

The protocol is highly centralized and in NodeDelegator, it will approve max value to EIGEN_STRATEGY_MANAGER which fully relies on the trust of the LRTConfig

And EIGEN_STRATEGY_MANAGER is out of the scope.

Tools Used

Manual

Recommended Mitigation Steps

It's better to approve on demand, instead of approve max.

Assessed type

Rug-Pull
@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 15, 2023
c4-submissions added a commit that referenced this issue Nov 15, 2023
@c4-submissions
spark issue #803
7bd67b5
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

raymondfam marked the issue as insufficient quality report

@c4-pre-sort c4-pre-sort added the insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality label Nov 16, 2023
@c4-pre-sort
Copy link

raymondfam marked the issue as duplicate of #70

@c4-judge c4-judge added downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax and removed 2 (Med Risk) Assets not at direct risk, but function/availability of the protocol could be impacted or leak value labels Nov 29, 2023
@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

fatherGoose1 changed the severity to QA (Quality Assurance)

@c4-judge
Copy link
Contributor

fatherGoose1 marked the issue as grade-b

@C4-Staff C4-Staff reopened this Dec 8, 2023
@C4-Staff C4-Staff added the Q-06 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
bug Something isn't working downgraded by judge Judge downgraded the risk level of this issue duplicate-70 grade-b insufficient quality report This report is not of sufficient quality Q-06 QA (Quality Assurance) Assets are not at risk. State handling, function incorrect as to spec, issues with clarity, syntax
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
4 participants
@c4-judge @c4-pre-sort @C4-Staff @c4-submissions