Tadle

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

Insufficient approvals from `CapitalPool`

Summary

Whenever a `_transfer` is initiated:

```

/**
* @notice Internal Function: Transfer token
* @dev Transfer ERC20 token
* @param _token ERC20 token address
* @param _from From address
* @param _to To address
* @param _amount Transfer amount
*/
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();
}
}

Vulnerability Details

If from == capitalPoolAdr, then:

ICapitalPool(_capitalPoolAddr).approve(address(this)); is called to grant approve from the capitalPool to the tokenManager but the input parameter is incorrect as it should specify the tokenAddress and not address(this).

Impact

Insufficient approvals, broken logic

Tools Used

Manual Review

Recommendations

Change the input param to the token address that is going to be approved by the contract

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.