Tadle
Tadle
DeFi
30,000 USDC
View results
Previous Next
Submission Details
Severity: high
Valid

Incorrect Token Approval in `TokenManager::_transfer` Function

abhishekthakur

Summary

Incorrect logic in _transfer function for approval

Vulnerability Details

function _transfer(
address _token,
address _from,
address _to,
uint256 _amount,
address _capitalPoolAddr
) internal {
uint256 fromBalanceBef = IERC20(_token).balanceOf(_from);
uint256 toBalanceBef = IERC20(_token).balanceOf(_to);
​
if (
_from == _capitalPoolAddr &&
IERC20(_token).allowance(_from, address(this)) == 0x0
) {
/// @audit wrong logic
/// it should be token address, not address(this)
@> ICapitalPool(_capitalPoolAddr).approve(address(this));
}
​
_safe_transfer_from(_token, _from, _to, _amount);
​
uint256 fromBalanceAft = IERC20(_token).balanceOf(_from);
uint256 toBalanceAft = IERC20(_token).balanceOf(_to);
​
if (fromBalanceAft != fromBalanceBef - _amount) {
revert TransferFailed();
}
​
if (toBalanceAft != toBalanceBef + _amount) {
revert TransferFailed();
}
}

_transfer function in TokenManager checks if particular token has zero approval from capitalPool to TokenManager, it calls approve on capitalPool with address(this) as argument, which is wrong because Capital pool approve implementation requires token address as input not the TokenManager address.

Reference of Capital pool implementation -

@> function approve(address tokenAddr) external {
address tokenManager = tadleFactory.relatedContracts(
RelatedContractLibraries.TOKEN_MANAGER
);
///
(bool success, ) = tokenAddr.call(
abi.encodeWithSelector(
APPROVE_SELECTOR,
tokenManager,
type(uint256).max
)
);
​
if (!success) {
revert ApproveFailed();
}
}

As we can see clearly, that putting caller address is not the correct way. Rather the token address.

Impact

Tx will pass this approve logic due to low level call, but transfer gonna fail. It's better to implement the statement correctly.

Tools Used

Manual Review

Recommendations

function _transfer(
address _token,
address _from,
address _to,
uint256 _amount,
address _capitalPoolAddr
) internal {
uint256 fromBalanceBef = IERC20(_token).balanceOf(_from);
uint256 toBalanceBef = IERC20(_token).balanceOf(_to);
​
if (
_from == _capitalPoolAddr &&
IERC20(_token).allowance(_from, address(this)) == 0x0
) {
- ICapitalPool(_capitalPoolAddr).approve(address(this));
+ ICapitalPool(_capitalPoolAddr).approve(_token);
}
​
_safe_transfer_from(_token, _from, _to, _amount);
​
uint256 fromBalanceAft = IERC20(_token).balanceOf(_from);
uint256 toBalanceAft = IERC20(_token).balanceOf(_to);
​
if (fromBalanceAft != fromBalanceBef - _amount) {
revert TransferFailed();
}
​
if (toBalanceAft != toBalanceBef + _amount) {
revert TransferFailed();
}
}

Updates

Lead Judging Commences

0xnevi Lead Judge 10 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Validated
Assigned finding tags:

finding-TokenManager-approve-wrong-address-input

If we consider the correct permissioned implementation for the `approve()` function within `CapitalPool.sol`, this would be a critical severity issue, because the withdrawal of funds will be permanently blocked and must be rescued by the admin via the `Rescuable.sol` contract, given it will always revert [here](https://github.com/Cyfrin/2024-08-tadle/blob/04fd8634701697184a3f3a5558b41c109866e5f8/src/core/CapitalPool.sol#L36-L38) when attempting to call a non-existent function selector `approve` within the TokenManager contract. The argument up in the air is since the approval function `approve` was made permisionless, the `if` block within the internal `_transfer()` function will never be invoked if somebody beforehand calls approval for the TokenManager for the required token, so the transfer will infact not revert when a withdrawal is invoked. I will leave open for escalation discussions, but based on my first point, I believe high severity is appropriate.

Support

FAQs

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