Improper Handling of Failed Transfers Leading to Treasury
Summary
The contract PerpetualVault contains the withdraw process while handle part of user profit to treasury as governance fee , but the inside logic is not appropriate .
Vulnerability Details
The _transferToken function improperly handles failed transfers to recipients by redirecting the tokens to the Treasury without a recovery mechanism. When collateralToken.transfer(depositInfo[depositId].recipient, amount - fee) fails, the tokens are sent to the Treasury instead.From current scope , we are unable to know whether contract Treasury has implemented such functionality for user to claim the funds or it distributes them by itself .
Impact
If contract treasury didn't implement such recovery mechanism , it will have the following impact :
Recipients lose access to their collatoral tokens permanently if a transfer fails
The protocol’s credibility is harmed due to unrecoverable funds.
Tools Used
Manual
Recommendations
Implement a recovery mechanism in contract treasury . Or rather , implement it in contract PerpetualVault directly , let recipents claim their tokens by themselves .
Lead Judging Commences
Admin is trusted / Malicious keepers
Please read the CodeHawks documentation to know which submissions are valid. If you disagree, provide a coded PoC and explain the real likelihood and the detailed impact on the mainnet without any supposition (if, it could, etc) to prove your point. Keepers are added by the admin, there is no "malicious keeper" and if there is a problem in those keepers, that's out of scope. ReadMe and known issues states: " * System relies heavily on keeper for executing trades * Single keeper point of failure if not properly distributed * Malicious keeper could potentially front-run or delay transactions * Assume that Keeper will always have enough gas to execute transactions. There is a pay execution fee function, but the assumption should be that there's more than enough gas to cover transaction failures, retries, etc * There are two spot swap functionalies: (1) using GMX swap and (2) using Paraswap. We can assume that any swap failure will be retried until success. " " * Heavy dependency on GMX protocol functioning correctly * Owner can update GMX-related addresses * Changes in GMX protocol could impact system operations * We can assume that the GMX keeper won't misbehave, delay, or go offline. " "Issues related to GMX Keepers being DOS'd or losing functionality would be considered invalid."
Prize pool breakdown
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.