Submission Details
Severity:
`block.number` is Used Instead of `block.timestamp` for `blockTimestampDeposit` in `UpliftOnlyExample::afterUpdate`
Summary
In the UpliftOnlyExample::afterUpdate function, when an NFT is transferred and the feeDataArray is updated, the code uses block.number for blockTimestampDeposit.
Vulnerability Details
The relevant code snippet shows the issue:
if (tokenIdIndexFound) {
if (_to != address(0)) {
feeDataArray[tokenIdIndex].lpTokenDepositValue = lpTokenDepositValueNow;
feeDataArray[tokenIdIndex].blockTimestampDeposit = uint32(block.number); // @audit block.number is used
}
}
Recommendations
Replace block.number with block.timestamp in the blockTimestampDeposit assignment:
feeDataArray[tokenIdIndex].blockTimestampDeposit = uint40(block.timestamp);
Updates
Lead Judging Commences
n0kto 10 months ago
Submission Judgement Published Assigned finding tags:
finding_afterUpdate_blockNumber_instead_of_timestamp
Likelihood: Medium/High, any NFT transfer will change this variable. Impact: Informational/Very Low. This variable is unused and won’t impact anything, but the array is public and its getter will return a variable with inconsistencies.
Prize pool breakdown
Total prize
49,600 OP
nSLOC
3,00017
OP / LOC
44,640
4,960
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.