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

TokenManager approves itself has a token instead of real tokens, leading the protocol to fail the token management

n0kto

Description

CapitalPool::approve is called by TokenManager::_transfer or by anyone to give approval to TokenManager on the pool.

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();
}
}

If TokenManager do not have the allowance, it calls the approve function but with its own address as a parameter.
As we can see in the approve function above, it won't work because the parameter should be the token to approve, not the TokenManager address. TokenManager do not have any approve function or is an ERC20 token, therefore it doesn't make any sense to use it as the argument.

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();
}
}

Risk

Likelyhood: Low/Medium

  • Everytime a TokenManager is no allowance, that part of the code won't correct it as expected.

Impact: Low/Medium

  • Transfer won't work if approve is not called with the right token before _transfer.

Recommended Mitigation

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 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.