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

Absence of validation when setting min and max deposit amounts

damilolaedwards

Target

contracts/PerpetualVault

Vulnerability Details

The setMinMaxDepositAmount function is responsible for setting the minimum and maximum deposit amounts and can only be called by the contract owner. However, it lacks validation to ensure that the minimum deposit amount is less than or equal to the maximum deposit amount. Adding this validation would help prevent potential misconfigurations when the function is executed.

function setMinMaxDepositAmount(uint256 _minDepositAmount, uint256 _maxDepositAmount) external onlyOwner {
minDepositAmount = _minDepositAmount;
maxDepositAmount = _maxDepositAmount;
}

Impact

Max and min deposit amount state variable control the flow of deposit in to the vault, accidental misconfigurations can block valid deposit operations

Tools Used

Manual Review

Recommendations

Add data validation checks to ensure the the min deposit amount value parameter is less than or equal to the max deposit amount parameter

Updates

Lead Judging Commences

n0kto Lead Judge 7 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Non-acceptable severity
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."

Support

FAQs

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