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

Missing Value Validation in setDataFeed Parameters

alekseyts

Summary

The setDataFeed function lacks validation for _maxTimeWindow and _threshold parameters.

Vulnerability Details

add validation for _maxTimeWindow and _threshold:

function setDataFeed(address token, address feed, uint256 _maxTimeWindow, uint256 _threshold) external onlyOwner {
require(token != address(0), "zero address");
require(feed != address(0), "zero address");
dataFeed[token] = feed;
maxTimeWindow[token] = _maxTimeWindow; // @audit No validation for zero value
priceDiffThreshold[token] = _threshold; // @audit No validation for zero value
}

Impact

Low:

  • Zero values could override existing non-zero configurations

  • Could lead to incorrect price validations

  • _maxTimeWindow of 0 would make all prices appear stale

  • _threshold of 0 would make price deviation checks too strict

Recommendation

Add value validation for numeric parameters:

function setDataFeed(address token, address feed, uint256 _maxTimeWindow, uint256 _threshold) external onlyOwner {
require(token != address(0), "zero address");
require(feed != address(0), "zero address");
require(_maxTimeWindow > 0, "Invalid time window");
require(_threshold > 0, "Invalid threshold");
dataFeed[token] = feed;
maxTimeWindow[token] = _maxTimeWindow;
priceDiffThreshold[token] = _threshold;
}
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."

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!