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

DOS via ETH drain in GMX proxy

devanas

Summary

PerpetualVault::run() is relies on GmxProxy to maintain a minimum ETH balance. if GmxProxy’s balance falls below this threshold, run() function reverts. However, GmxProxy allows the owner to withdraw all ETH at any time, which can stop keeper to call run function. This effectively blocks the keeper from executing critical operations, leading to a Denial of Service (DoS) scenario.

Vulnerability Details

https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/2025-02-gamma/blob/main/contracts/GmxProxy.sol#L539-L543

If owner withdrawEth, the PerpetualVault::run() would not run, and if he does not, it will leave the funds behind.

function withdrawEth() external onlyOwner returns (uint256) {
uint256 balance = address(this).balance; // @audit withdraw all eth amount
payable(msg.sender).transfer(balance);
return balance;
}

Impact

Keeper operations fail when GMXProxy’s ETH balance is drained.

Tools Used

Foundry

Recommendations

Make sure GmxProxy always have minETH balance

function withdrawEth() external onlyOwner returns (uint256) {
uint256 balance = address(this).balance;
+ uint256 amount = balance - minEth;
- payable(msg.sender).transfer(balance);
+ payable(msg.sender).transfer(amount);
- return balance;
+ return amount;
}
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

n0kto Lead Judge 9 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.

Give us feedback!