Liquidity Management
Gamma
DeFiFoundry
50,000 USDC
View results
Previous Next
Submission Details
Severity: low
Invalid

User will lost all fund when the try catch block used in the transferToken fails

uncontrolledking

[M - 2] User will lost all fund when the try catch block used in the transferToken fails

Vulnerability Details:
When user want to withdraw there are alot of flows, alot of functions are been called in this withdraw functions ,

withdraw calls the internal _withdraw
then the internal _withdraw calls _handleReturn
then _handleReturn calls _transferToken

Then in this _transferToken

try collateralToken.transfer(depositInfo[depositId].recipient, amount - fee) {}
catch {
collateralToken.transfer(treasury, amount - fee);
emit TokenTranferFailed(depositInfo[depositId].recipient, amount - fee);
}
totalDepositAmount -= depositInfo[depositId].amount;

First they tried to send the user the fund, now if for any reason it fails then the users fund is been transfered to the treasury ,

Now even tho the user funds was sent to the treasury

totalDepositAmount -= depositInfo[depositId].amount;
​

users amount is been removed from the totalDepositAmount

After that

function _handleReturn(uint256 withdrawn, bool positionClosed, bool refundFee) internal {
(uint256 depositId) = flowData;
uint256 shares = depositInfo[depositId].shares;
uint256 amount;
if (positionClosed) {
amount = collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this)) * shares / totalShares;
} else {
// @check get back to this calculation uint256 balanceBeforeWithdrawal = collateralToken.balanceOf(address(this)) - withdrawn;
amount = withdrawn + balanceBeforeWithdrawal * shares / totalShares;
}
if (amount > 0) {
_transferToken(depositId, amount);
}
emit Burned(depositId, depositInfo[depositId].recipient, depositInfo[depositId].shares, amount);
_burn(depositId); <@

The users deposit ID will now get burned, removing every traces of the users funds

Impact:
User will lose funds and all access to the fund because the users share is also burn and users depositId is also deleted

Proof of Concept:

function _transferToken(uint256 depositId, uint256 amount) internal {
uint256 fee;
if (amount > depositInfo[depositId].amount) {
fee = (amount - depositInfo[depositId].amount) * governanceFee / BASIS_POINTS_DIVISOR;
if (fee > 0) {
collateralToken.safeTransfer(treasury, fee);
}
}
try collateralToken.transfer(depositInfo[depositId].recipient, amount - fee) {}
catch {
// @check if this transfer fails is possible that the user shares will still get burnt // why not revert here?
collateralToken.transfer(treasury, amount - fee);
emit TokenTranferFailed(depositInfo[depositId].recipient, amount - fee);
}
totalDepositAmount -= depositInfo[depositId].amount;
emit GovernanceFeeCollected(address(collateralToken), fee);
}

Recommended Mitigation:
is neccesary to implement ways to return users funds, if the try and catch fails, treating users in such manners will result to doubt from users .

Updates

Lead Judging Commences

n0kto Lead Judge 5 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Design choice
Assigned finding tags:

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."

Suppositions

There is no real proof, concrete root cause, specific impact, or enough details in those submissions. Examples include: "It could happen" without specifying when, "If this impossible case happens," "Unexpected behavior," etc. Make a Proof of Concept (PoC) using external functions and realistic parameters. Do not test only the internal function where you think you found something.

n0kto Lead Judge 5 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Design choice
Assigned finding tags:

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."

Suppositions

There is no real proof, concrete root cause, specific impact, or enough details in those submissions. Examples include: "It could happen" without specifying when, "If this impossible case happens," "Unexpected behavior," etc. Make a Proof of Concept (PoC) using external functions and realistic parameters. Do not test only the internal function where you think you found something.

Support

FAQs

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