The code logic is inconsistent between different sections
Summary
In the closeBidTaker() function, the protocol requires that offerInfo.offerStatus must be OfferStatus.Settled. However, later in the code, the protocol also considers the case where offerInfo.offerStatus == OfferStatus.Virgin. These two conditions are contradictory.
Vulnerability Details
In the closeBidTaker() function, the protocol checks that offerInfo.offerStatus must be OfferStatus.Settled.
However, when offerInfo.usedPoints > offerInfo.settledPoints, the protocol also considers the case where offerInfo.offerStatus == OfferStatus.Virgin.
Impact
These two pieces of logic are contradictory and create a design conflict.
Tools Used
Recommendations
It is recommended to address this situation.
Lead Judging Commences
[invalid] finding-PreMarkets-closeBidTaker-Virgin-Settled-unreachable
Borderline informational/low severity, taker bid offers can only be closed after settlement by original makers, so the check for `Settled` offer status is correct but the initial `if` block is dead code and will never be reached i.e., even if original maker offer was not settled, this issue cannot be exploited. Additionally, makers are incentivized to settle original offers to earn maker bonuses from subsequent trades from the original maker offers by takers. Some issues such as 612, 1774 and 1775 have no impact described but I am duplicating anyways since I am invalidating this issue. Assigning as informational severity since I believe this can be seen as simply a waste of gas and confusing code logic.
Prize pool breakdown
Live
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
Appeals
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals Review
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.