Liquid Staking

Stakelink
DeFiHardhatOracle
50,000 USDC
View results
Submission Details
Severity: medium
Invalid

test/linkStaking/operator-vcs.test.ts

Your code for the OperatorVCS smart contract testing suite appears comprehensive, but it may have some vulnerabilities and areas for improvement. Below, I’ll identify potential vulnerabilities and propose detailed solutions for enhancements.

Identified Vulnerabilities and Proposed Improvements

  1. Unchecked External Calls:

    • Vulnerability: External calls (like transferring tokens) can fail, and failing to handle these appropriately can lead to unexpected behavior or loss of funds.

    • Solution: Use require statements to ensure the success of external calls. For example, when calling approve or transfer, wrap them in a require statement:

      require(await token.approve(adrs.stakingPool, ethers.MaxUint256), "Token approval failed");
      require(await token.transfer(adrs.rewardsController, toEther(10000)), "Token transfer failed");
  2. Gas Limit Issues:

    • Vulnerability: Some transactions may run out of gas if too many vaults are processed or if the operations become too complex.

    • Solution: Break down larger functions into smaller ones that can be executed separately, or implement a batching mechanism to handle operations in chunks.

  3. Reentrancy Attacks:

    • Vulnerability: If the contract allows calling back into itself (e.g., in reward withdrawals), it may be vulnerable to reentrancy attacks.

    • Solution: Implement a reentrancy guard pattern using a mutex. Here’s an example using a simple boolean flag:

      bool internal _notEntered;
      modifier nonReentrant() {
      require(_notEntered, "ReentrancyGuard: reentrant call");
      _notEntered = false;
      _;
      _notEntered = true;
      }
  4. Use of any Type:

    • Vulnerability: The use of any can lead to unexpected errors during runtime, making the code less type-safe and harder to maintain.

    • Solution: Replace any with specific types wherever possible. For instance, use address[] for account lists or define interfaces for expected objects.

  5. Hardcoded Constants:

    • Vulnerability: Constants like unbondingPeriod and claimPeriod are hardcoded, making them inflexible.

    • Solution: Consider making these parameters configurable upon contract deployment or through governance mechanisms, allowing for greater adaptability.

  6. Potential for Overflow/Underflow:

    • Vulnerability: Although Solidity 0.8+ has built-in overflow checks, ensure you are aware of where integer overflows could still occur, especially in calculations.

    • Solution: Ensure that all arithmetic operations are appropriately bounded by checks or use safe math libraries where applicable, even if not strictly necessary.

  7. Lack of Event Emission:

    • Vulnerability: Not all critical state changes emit events. This can lead to a lack of transparency and difficulty in tracking contract state.

    • Solution: Emit events for significant state changes (like adding vaults, deposits, withdrawals, etc.):

      event VaultAdded(address indexed operator, address indexed rewardsReceiver);
      function addVault(address operator, address rewardsReceiver) external {
      // ... logic ...
      emit VaultAdded(operator, rewardsReceiver);
      }
  8. Testing Coverage:

    • Vulnerability: The test cases may not cover all edge cases or failure scenarios (like what happens if a user tries to withdraw before the unbonding period).

    • Solution: Ensure comprehensive tests are written to cover all edge cases, including:

      • Trying to withdraw before the unbonding period.

      • Attempting to add more vaults than the limit.

      • Testing how the contract handles maximum and minimum deposits.

Detailed Example of Improvements

Here’s how you could improve the addVault function to address some of the issues above:

event VaultAdded(address indexed operator, address indexed rewardsReceiver);
function addVault(address operator, address rewardsReceiver, address pfAlertsController) external nonReentrant {
require(operator != address(0), "Invalid operator");
require(rewardsReceiver != address(0), "Invalid rewards receiver");
// Add the vault logic...
// Emit event for vault addition
emit VaultAdded(operator, rewardsReceiver);
}

Conclusion

By addressing the vulnerabilities outlined above and implementing the proposed improvements, you can enhance the security, maintainability, and overall robustness of your OperatorVCS smart contract testing suite. Ensure that testing covers all critical paths and edge cases to confirm the expected behavior of the system.

Updates

Lead Judging Commences

inallhonesty Lead Judge 11 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Lack of quality

Support

FAQs

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