MorpheusAI

MorpheusAI
Foundry
22,500 USDC
View results
Submission Details
Severity: high
Invalid

An attacker could repeatedly call the claim function, manipulating the reward calculations or draining funds from the contract.

Summary

The claim function in the IDistribution interface is susceptible to reentrancy attacks, as it allows external calls that could result in unexpected behavior. Implementing a reentrancy guard is recommended to enhance the security of the function.

Vulnerability Details

POC

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;
interface IDistribution {
// ... (Other interface functions)
/**
* The function to claim rewards from the pool.
* @param poolId_ The pool's id.
* @param user_ The user's address.
*/
function claim(uint256 poolId_, address user_) external payable;
// ... (Other interface functions)
}

Description

The claim function lacks a reentrancy guard, potentially allowing an external attacker to reenter the function while it's still executing. This could lead to unexpected behavior, including manipulation of state variables and fund transfers.

The vulnerability I mentioned is a generic warning about potential reentrancy attacks in functions that involve external calls or transfers. In the specific case of the claim function, the risk of unauthorized fund drainage is not directly applicable if the function does not involve fund transfers to untrusted addresses.

In the provided claim function snippet, we can see that the function is marked as payable, indicating the possibility of receiving Ether. The risk of reentrancy typically arises when a function involves external calls, especially to untrusted contracts, where an attacker might attempt to manipulate the contract's state.

However, since the specific details of the claim function's implementation are not provided in the code snippet, and if it doesn't involve transfers or sensitive state changes, the risk might be minimal. My earlier recommendation for a reentrancy guard remains valid for general security best practices but may not be as critical in the context of the claim function specifically.

If the claim function involves only state changes without significant financial implications, the risk of unauthorized fund drainage might not be applicable. I recommend reviewing the complete implementation of the claim function for a more accurate assessment of potential security concerns.

Impact

A successful reentrancy attack could result in undesired state changes and potential loss of funds. For example, an attacker could repeatedly call the claim function, manipulating the reward calculations or draining funds from the contract.

Tools Used

Manual inspection of the provided code snippet without specific tools.

Recommendations

Implement a reentrancy guard using the nonReentrant modifier from the OpenZeppelin ReentrancyGuard contract or a similar pattern. Below is an example of how to apply the nonReentrant modifier:

By incorporating the nonReentrant modifier, you add a layer of protection against reentrancy attacks in the claim function.

// SPDX-License-Identifier: MIT
pragma solidity ^0.8.20;
import "@openzeppelin/contracts/security/ReentrancyGuard.sol";
interface IDistribution is ReentrancyGuard {
// ... (Other interface functions)
/**
* The function to claim rewards from the pool.
* @param poolId_ The pool's id.
* @param user_ The user's address.
*/
function claim(uint256 poolId_, address user_) external payable nonReentrant;
// ... (Other interface functions)
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

inallhonesty Lead Judge over 1 year ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Lack of quality

Support

FAQs

Can't find an answer? Chat with us on Discord, Twitter or Linkedin.