Dria

Github

• https://github.com/Cyfrin/2024-10-swan-dria/blob/c8686b199daadcef3161980022e12b66a5304f8e/contracts/llm/LLMOracleCoordinator.sol#L260

Summary

The validate function in the LLMOracleCoordinator contract allows validators to submit scores for individual task generations. However, the function does not include a check to ensure that each score in the submission is within an acceptable range, specifically below a defined maximum score. This absence of validation introduces a potential vulnerability, as validators can submit excessively high scores that could manipulate or distort task outcomes. Implementing a maximum score check is essential to maintaining the integrity of the scoring process, ensuring accurate results, and preventing any manipulation that could affect task rewards or evaluations.

Vulnerability Details

The primary purpose of the validate function is to record validation scores submitted by validators for each generation within a task. Each validator submits an array of scores, where each score corresponds to a specific generation. For example, if a task requires three generations, the validator will submit an array of three scores, each indicating the validation score for one generation. However, the function currently lacks a boundary check for each individual score. This missing validation allows scores that exceed a reasonable maximum value, potentially skewing the task’s final outcome.

Without a defined maximum score, validators are free to submit abnormally high scores that could influence the result calculations in ways that are unintended or exploitative. For instance, when scores are aggregated or averaged in later stages, excessively high scores can raise the overall mean or influence which responses are deemed the most successful. This could have substantial impacts, particularly if rewards or task completion depend on these scores.

Example

To illustrate, imagine a task with three generations, where each score is expected to be within a range of 0 to 100. A validator could submit scores [150, 90, 95], where the first score, 150, exceeds the anticipated maximum score of 100. Without a check in place, this score would be accepted and stored in the contract, leading to an inflated average or otherwise skewed result when all scores are later processed. The inflated score would unfairly affect the ranking or reward distribution for the task, potentially disadvantaging participants who completed valid responses.

In a real-world scenario, such unchecked scores could also lead to disputes over task outcomes, as other users or validators might identify the issue and question the fairness of the results. This inconsistency would not only introduce errors in the scoring mechanism but could also erode user trust in the platform.

Impact

The absence of a maximum score check in the validate function allows validators to submit excessively high scores, potentially distorting task outcomes and reward distributions. This vulnerability could be exploited to manipulate task results, leading to unfair rewards or biased responder selection. Additionally, unchecked scores undermine user trust in the platform's fairness and accuracy, as task requesters and other participants may encounter inconsistent validation results. Over time, this could erode confidence in the platform’s integrity and lead to reputational and financial harm.

Tools Used

Manual Review

Recommendations

To address this vulnerability, it is recommended that a maximum score check be implemented within the validate function. The function should iterate through each score in the submitted array and ensure it does not exceed a predefined MAX_SCORE value.