Tadle

Tadle
DeFiFoundry
27,750 USDC
View results
Submission Details
Severity: high
Valid

DOS on `TokenManager::withdraw` due to incorrect `approve` call to capital pool for native token and missing allowance check for non-native tokens

Summary

  1. On native token withdrawal where token is transfered from capitalPool to TokenManager, the approve call to capitalPool passes the tokenManager as argument instead of the token address.

  2. On non-native token withdrawal there's no sanity check to ensure the TokenManager has sufficient allowance to transfer the specific token from the capitalPool to the sender.

Vulnerability Details

  1. On native token withdrawal here , if we inspect the _transfer function

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));
}
_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();
}
}

We see that if allowance is 0 , then TokenManager calls approve on the capitalPool.However the capitalPool approve function expects the token address as an argument.

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();
}
}

So the low level call returns false and the function reverts since TokenManager doesn't have an approve function.

  1. On non-native token withdrawal the TokenManager assumes that it has sufficient allowance to transfer the specific token from the capitalPool to the sender.
    https://github.com/Cyfrin/2024-08-tadle/blob/04fd8634701697184a3f3a5558b41c109866e5f8/src/core/TokenManager.sol#L170-L181 , no allowance check is done.

Impact

MEDIUM - DOS on TokenManager::withdraw

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();
}
}
function withdraw(
address _tokenAddress,
TokenBalanceType _tokenBalanceType
) external whenNotPaused {
//...ommited for brevity
} else {
/**
* @dev token is ERC20 token
* @dev transfer from capital pool to msg sender
*/
+ if (IERC20(_tokenAddress).allowance(capitalPoolAddr, address(this)) == 0) {
+ ICapitalPool(capitalPoolAddr).approve(_tokenAddress);
+ }
_safe_transfer_from(
_tokenAddress,
capitalPoolAddr,
_msgSender(),
claimAbleAmount
);
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

0xnevi Lead Judge about 1 year 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.