Flow

Sablier
FoundryDeFi
20,000 USDC
View results
Submission Details
Severity: low
Invalid

Insufficient Documentation for noDelegateCall Modifier in NoDelegateCall Contract

Summary

The noDelegateCall modifier lacks comprehensive documentation, which may lead to misunderstandings about its purpose and usage, potentially resulting in improper contract implementations.

Finding Description

The noDelegateCall modifier is intended to prevent delegate calls to the contract, ensuring that functions cannot be executed via a delegate call, which could compromise the contract's integrity. However, the documentation does not sufficiently explain its functionality, implications, or expected behavior.

Poorly documented modifiers can result in developers misunderstanding how to use them, leading to misuse or incorrect assumptions about the contract's security features. For instance, if a developer is unaware that this modifier is critical for the contract's security, they may inadvertently omit it from functions, leaving the contract vulnerable to delegate call exploits.

Vulnerability Details

The lack of clear documentation for the noDelegateCall modifier can lead to a misunderstanding of its necessity. Without proper guidance, developers may:

  • Neglect to apply the modifier to sensitive functions, inadvertently allowing delegate calls.

  • Misinterpret the contract's behavior when integrating it with other contracts.

This can break security guarantees, specifically the guarantee that only the original contract can execute its functions directly.

Impact

The impact of this documentation issue is significant because it affects the usability and security of the contract. If developers do not understand how and when to use the noDelegateCall modifier, it can lead to vulnerabilities in the deployed contract, potentially allowing malicious actors to exploit delegate call mechanisms.

A successful exploit could compromise the integrity of the contract, leading to unauthorized function executions, data manipulation, or loss of funds.

Proof of Concept

The following example illustrates how the lack of understanding regarding the noDelegateCall modifier could lead to a vulnerable implementation:

contract MaliciousContract {
NoDelegateCall public target;
constructor(NoDelegateCall _target) {
target = _target;
}
function exploit() external {
// Incorrectly assumes that `target` cannot be exploited
target.call(abi.encodeWithSignature("someFunction()"));
}
}

In the above example, if someFunction() does not use the noDelegateCall modifier, it could be executed via delegate call, leading to a security breach.

Recommendations

To fix this issue, the documentation for the noDelegateCall modifier should be expanded to include:

  • A clear description of its purpose (preventing delegate calls).

  • Instructions on how and when to use the modifier.

  • Examples of potential vulnerabilities that can occur without proper usage.

Suggested Documentation Update:

/// @notice Prevents delegate calls.
/// @dev This modifier ensures that functions cannot be called via delegatecall.
/// Using this modifier is crucial for protecting the contract's state and logic from being exploited
/// through delegate calls. Ensure that all critical functions that modify state or execute logic
/// utilize this modifier to maintain security guarantees.
modifier noDelegateCall() {
_preventDelegateCall();
_;
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

inallhonesty Lead Judge 11 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Non-acceptable severity

Support

FAQs

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