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

Users car change the referrer of anyone else to themself

n0kto

Description

SystemConfig::updateReferrerInfo permit to anyone to change their own referrer.
Problem is that the code get the referral info of the _referrer instead of the message sender.
It will then set the referrer as the referrer of the referrer, and also the rate the referrer will receive.

function updateReferrerInfo(
address _referrer,
uint256 _referrerRate,
uint256 _authorityRate
) external {
if (_msgSender() == _referrer) {
revert InvalidReferrer(_referrer);
}
​
if (_referrer == address(0x0)) {
revert Errors.ZeroAddress();
}
​
if (_referrerRate < baseReferralRate) {
revert InvalidReferrerRate(_referrerRate);
}
​
uint256 referralExtraRate = referralExtraRateMap[_referrer];
uint256 totalRate = baseReferralRate + referralExtraRate;
​
if (totalRate > Constants.REFERRAL_RATE_DECIMAL_SCALER) {
revert InvalidTotalRate(totalRate);
}
​
if (_referrerRate + _authorityRate != totalRate) {
revert InvalidRate(_referrerRate, _authorityRate, totalRate);
}
​
@> ReferralInfo storage referralInfo = referralInfoMap[_referrer];
@> referralInfo.referrer = _referrer;
referralInfo.referrerRate = _referrerRate;
referralInfo.authorityRate = _authorityRate;
​
emit UpdateReferrerInfo(
msg.sender,
_referrer,
_referrerRate,
_authorityRate
);
}

Risk

Likelyhood: High

  • Anytime for every any user.

Impact: High

  • Usage of referral in the protocol will be completly broken.

  • Users can set and will get the referral fees instead of sending them to the protocol or the real referrer.

  • Bypass of the condition if (_msgSender() == _referrer) with a second account.

Recommended Mitigation

function updateReferrerInfo(
address _referrer,
uint256 _referrerRate,
uint256 _authorityRate
) external {
if (_msgSender() == _referrer) {
revert InvalidReferrer(_referrer);
}
​
if (_referrer == address(0x0)) {
revert Errors.ZeroAddress();
}
​
if (_referrerRate < baseReferralRate) {
revert InvalidReferrerRate(_referrerRate);
}
​
uint256 referralExtraRate = referralExtraRateMap[_referrer];
uint256 totalRate = baseReferralRate + referralExtraRate;
​
if (totalRate > Constants.REFERRAL_RATE_DECIMAL_SCALER) {
revert InvalidTotalRate(totalRate);
}
​
if (_referrerRate + _authorityRate != totalRate) {
revert InvalidRate(_referrerRate, _authorityRate, totalRate);
}
​
- ReferralInfo storage referralInfo = referralInfoMap[_referrer];
+ ReferralInfo storage referralInfo = referralInfoMap[_msgSender()];
referralInfo.referrer = _referrer;
referralInfo.referrerRate = _referrerRate;
referralInfo.authorityRate = _authorityRate;
​
emit UpdateReferrerInfo(
msg.sender,
_referrer,
_referrerRate,
_authorityRate
);
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

0xnevi Lead Judge about 1 year ago
Submission Judgement Published
Validated
Assigned finding tags:

finding-SystemConfig-updateReferrerInfo-msgSender

Valid high severity. There are two impacts here due to the wrong setting of the `refferalInfoMap` mapping. 1. Wrong refferal info is always set, so the refferal will always be delegated to the refferer address instead of the caller 2. Anybody can arbitrarily change the referrer and referrer rate of any user, resulting in gaming of the refferal system I prefer #1500 description the most, be cause it seems to be the only issue although without a poc to fully describe all of the possible impacts

Support

FAQs

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