User cannot withdraw ETH from CapitalPool, due to approve() is not called with correct argument.
User can call withdraw() to receive ETH if their claimable balance of wrappedNativeToken
is larger than 0.
_transfer() is called to transfer WETH from CapitalPool
to TokenManager
, then WETH is unwrapped and ETH is transferred to the user. To transfer WETH from CapitalPool, _transfer()
will call approve()
in CapitalPool
to get token allowance.
However, approve()
is called with wrong argument address(this)
, intead of WETH address, CapitalPool
will then try to call approve(address,uint256)
in TokenManager
, and the transaction will be reverted because there is no such function in TokenManager
.
Please run the PoC to verify:
User won't be able to withdraw ETH from CapitalPool.
Based on the current codebase, anyone can call approve()
to grant WETH allowance to TokenManager
, however, according to the NatSpect, the approve()
is only supposed to be called by TokenManager
, so no one else is expected to call this function (actually this is another issue).
@notice only can be called by token manager
Manual Review
Pass token address to approve()
:
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.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.