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

The referral system has been implemented incorrectly.

shaflow01

Summary

The updateReferrerInfo function incorrectly updates the referralInfoMap mapping, leading to errors in the referral system.

Vulnerability Details

https://github.com/Cyfrin/2024-08-tadle/blob/04fd8634701697184a3f3a5558b41c109866e5f8/src/core/SystemConfig.sol#L41

if (_msgSender() == _referrer) {
revert InvalidReferrer(_referrer);
}

You can infer from these two lines that users can set their referrer by calling the updateReferrerInfo function.

https://github.com/Cyfrin/2024-08-tadle/blob/04fd8634701697184a3f3a5558b41c109866e5f8/src/core/SystemConfig.sol#L69

ReferralInfo storage referralInfo = referralInfoMap[_referrer];
referralInfo.referrer = _referrer;
referralInfo.referrerRate = _referrerRate;
referralInfo.authorityRate = _authorityRate;

However, when setting the referralInfoMap mapping, _referrer is incorrectly used to point to referralInfo, rather than msg.sender.

I believe the correct logic here is to update msg.sender -> referralInfo, so that the fees msg.sender should pay to _referrer in each transaction can be accurately tracked.

https://github.com/Cyfrin/2024-08-tadle/blob/04fd8634701697184a3f3a5558b41c109866e5f8/src/core/PreMarkets.sol#L199

ReferralInfo memory referralInfo = systemConfig.getReferralInfo(
_msgSender()
);
​
uint256 platformFeeRate = systemConfig.getPlatformFeeRate(_msgSender());

During transaction collection, the system reads the referralInfo of msg.sender instead of the referralInfo of _referrer.

Impact

Due to the incorrect implementation of the referral system, referrers will never receive the referrer referral bonus from traders.

Tools Used

manual review

Recommendations

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 12 months 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.