NFTBridge
60,000 USDC
View results
Submission Details
Severity: low
Invalid

The condition on the `Bridge::MAX_PAYLOAD_LENGTH` is wrong, which prevents users from depositing tokens fewer times than specified.

Relevant GitHub Links

https://github.com/Cyfrin/2024-07-ark-project/blob/273b7b94986d3914d5ee737c99a59ec8728b1517/apps/blockchain/ethereum/src/Bridge.sol#L134

Summary

The value of Bridge::MAX_PAYLOAD_LENGTH constant is 300 but user can't reach this max value when deposit token in Bridge::depositTokens function.

Vulnerability Details

The number of times a user can deposit the token with the Bridge::depositTokens function is limited to 300 as specified in constant Bridge::MAX_PAYLOAD_LENGTH. However, in function Bridge::depositTokens when the payload array reaches this size of 300 the user can no longer deposit as the revert condition is reached.

function depositTokens(
uint256 salt,
address collectionL1,
snaddress ownerL2,
uint256[] calldata ids,
bool useAutoBurn
)
external
payable
{
if (!Cairo.isFelt252(snaddress.unwrap(ownerL2))) {
revert CairoWrapError();
}
if (!_enabled) {
revert BridgeNotEnabledError();
}
CollectionType ctype = TokenUtil.detectInterface(collectionL1);
if (ctype == CollectionType.ERC1155) {
revert NotSupportedYetError();
}
if (!_isWhiteListed(collectionL1)) {
revert NotWhiteListedError();
}
Request memory req;
// The withdraw auto is only available for request originated from
// Starknet side as the withdraw on starknet is automatically done
// by the sequencer.
req.header = Protocol.requestHeaderV1(ctype, useAutoBurn, false);
req.hash = Protocol.requestHash(salt, collectionL1, ownerL2, ids);
// TODO: store request hash in storage to avoid replay attack.
// or can it be safe to use block timestamp? Not sure as
// several tx may have the exact same block.
req.collectionL1 = collectionL1;
req.collectionL2 = _l1ToL2Addresses[collectionL1];
req.ownerL1 = msg.sender;
req.ownerL2 = ownerL2;
if (ctype == CollectionType.ERC721) {
(req.name, req.symbol, req.uri, req.tokenURIs) = TokenUtil.erc721Metadata(
collectionL1,
ids
);
} else {
(req.uri) = TokenUtil.erc1155Metadata(collectionL1);
}
_depositIntoEscrow(ctype, collectionL1, ids);
req.tokenIds = ids;
uint256[] memory payload = Protocol.requestSerialize(req);
@> if (payload.length >= MAX_PAYLOAD_LENGTH) {
revert TooManyTokensError();
}
IStarknetMessaging(_starknetCoreAddress).sendMessageToL2{value: msg.value}(
snaddress.unwrap(_starklaneL2Address),
felt252.unwrap(_starklaneL2Selector),
payload
);
emit DepositRequestInitiated(req.hash, block.timestamp, payload);
}

Impact

It is impossible for a user to deposit a token when the size of the payload table reaches Bridge::MAX_PAYLOAD_LENGTH which is 300, they can only deposit 299 times.

Tools Used

Manual Analysis.

Recommendations

Change the condition of revert as follows:

function depositTokens(
uint256 salt,
address collectionL1,
snaddress ownerL2,
uint256[] calldata ids,
bool useAutoBurn
)
external
payable
{
if (!Cairo.isFelt252(snaddress.unwrap(ownerL2))) {
revert CairoWrapError();
}
if (!_enabled) {
revert BridgeNotEnabledError();
}
CollectionType ctype = TokenUtil.detectInterface(collectionL1);
if (ctype == CollectionType.ERC1155) {
revert NotSupportedYetError();
}
if (!_isWhiteListed(collectionL1)) {
revert NotWhiteListedError();
}
Request memory req;
// The withdraw auto is only available for request originated from
// Starknet side as the withdraw on starknet is automatically done
// by the sequencer.
req.header = Protocol.requestHeaderV1(ctype, useAutoBurn, false);
req.hash = Protocol.requestHash(salt, collectionL1, ownerL2, ids);
// TODO: store request hash in storage to avoid replay attack.
// or can it be safe to use block timestamp? Not sure as
// several tx may have the exact same block.
req.collectionL1 = collectionL1;
req.collectionL2 = _l1ToL2Addresses[collectionL1];
req.ownerL1 = msg.sender;
req.ownerL2 = ownerL2;
if (ctype == CollectionType.ERC721) {
(req.name, req.symbol, req.uri, req.tokenURIs) = TokenUtil.erc721Metadata(
collectionL1,
ids
);
} else {
(req.uri) = TokenUtil.erc1155Metadata(collectionL1);
}
_depositIntoEscrow(ctype, collectionL1, ids);
req.tokenIds = ids;
uint256[] memory payload = Protocol.requestSerialize(req);
- if (payload.length >= MAX_PAYLOAD_LENGTH) {
+ if (payload.length > MAX_PAYLOAD_LENGTH) {
revert TooManyTokensError();
}
IStarknetMessaging(_starknetCoreAddress).sendMessageToL2{value: msg.value}(
snaddress.unwrap(_starklaneL2Address),
felt252.unwrap(_starklaneL2Selector),
payload
);
emit DepositRequestInitiated(req.hash, block.timestamp, payload);
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

n0kto Lead Judge 12 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Non-acceptable severity
Assigned finding tags:

Informational / Gas

Please, do not suppose impacts, think about the real impact of the bug and check the CodeHawks documentation to confirm: https://docs.codehawks.com/hawks-auditors/how-to-determine-a-finding-validity A PoC always helps to understand the real impact possible.

Support

FAQs

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