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

Ether will be stuck in a contract

0xakira

Vulnerability details

The GmxProxy contract has a function withdrawEth that only the owner can call, which in turn outputs all the Eth from the contract to the owner's address. Based on the documentation, the owner is multisig wallet. Because of this, the owner can't withdraw ether from the contract because this function uses the transfer function and not the call function. The transfer function uses 2300 units of gas, which is not enough, because if the ether is sent to the multisig wallet, much more gas is needed.

/**
* @notice Withdraws all ETH from the contract to the owner's address.
* @dev This function can only be called by the owner of the contract.
* @return The balance of ETH withdrawn from the contract.
*/
​
function withdrawEth() external onlyOwner returns (uint256) {
uint256 balance = address(this).balance;
payable(msg.sender).transfer(balance);
return balance;
}

Impact

Ether will be stuck in the contract until the contract holder is changed to a regular EOA

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Replace transfer with call

/**
* @notice Withdraws all ETH from the contract to the owner's address.
* @dev This function can only be called by the owner of the contract.
* @return The balance of ETH withdrawn from the contract.
*/
​
function withdrawEth() external onlyOwner returns (uint256) {
uint256 balance = address(this).balance;
- payable(msg.sender).transfer(balance);
+ payable(msg.sender).call{value:balance}("");
return balance;
}

Also change in the function GmxProxy::refundExecutionFee()

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."

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.

Give us feedback!