Treasury takeover on all user funds if the transfer fails
Summary
During withdraw, if collateralToken.transfer fails, then all assets transfers to treasury. That's unfair with depositors. Depositors loose asets.
Vulnerability Details
The function PerpetualVault.sol::withdraw() attempts to transfer the amount (amount - fee) to the recipient using collateralToken.transfer(...) inside a try-catch.
If the transfer fails, it catches the failure and sends the entire remaining amount to the treasury (collateralToken.transfer(treasury, amount - fee)).
-
This means that the user loses their funds, and the protocol treasury gains them.
-
The protocol is only meant to collect fees, a transfer failure shouldn't redirect the user's entire assets to the treasury.
Link to code :
https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/2025-02-gamma/blob/84b9da452fc84762378481fa39b4087b10bab5e0/contracts/PerpetualVault.sol#L1173
Impact
-
Loss of user funds: If a transfer to the recipient fails, the user should at least have an option to retry or claim their funds later instead of the treasury absorbing them.
-
Unfair behavior: The protocol only expects fees when a user makes a profit. But if a transfer fails, the whole withdrawal goes to the treasury, even when no profit was made.
Tools Used
Manual Review
Recommendations
Instead of directly sending funds to the treasury when a transfer fails, a better approach is:
Revert the transaction if
collateralToken.transfer(...)fails.Allow users to retry the withdrawal later instead of redirecting to the treasury.
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."
Appeal created
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."
Users mistake, only impacting themselves.
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.
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.