DeFiLayer 1Layer 2
14,723 OP
View results
Submission Details
Severity: medium
Invalid

Single Point of Failure in BlockHash Oracle

Summary

Reliance on a single BlockHashOracle creates a centralization risk.

Vulnerability Details

If IBlockHashOracle is compromised (e.g., returns fake block hashes), attackers can inject forged parameters.

Impact

Malicious price updates drain liquidity pools.

Tools Used

Analysis of verifyScrvusdByBlockHash dependency.

Recommendations

Use multiple independent oracles (e.g., Chainlink + LayerZero) and require consensus:

bytes32 hash1 = OracleA.get_block_hash(blockNum);
bytes32 hash2 = OracleB.get_block_hash(blockNum);
require(hash1 == hash2, "Oracle mismatch");
Updates

Lead Judging Commences

0xnevi Lead Judge
3 months ago
0xnevi Lead Judge 3 months ago
Submission Judgement Published
Invalidated
Reason: Out of scope
Assigned finding tags:

[invalid] finding-block-number-no-input-check

- Anything related to the output by the `BLOCK_HASH_ORACLE` is OOS per \[docs here]\(<https://github.com/CodeHawks-Contests/2025-03-curve?tab=readme-ov-file#blockhash-oracle>). - The PoC utilizes a mock `BLOCK_HASH_ORACLE`which is not representative of the one used by the protocol - Even when block hash returned is incorrect, the assumption is already explicitly made known in the docs, and the contract allows a subsequent update within the same block to update and correct prices - All state roots and proofs must be verified by the OOS `StateProofVerifier` inherited as `Verifier`, so there is no proof that manipulating block timestamp/block number/inputs can affect a price update - There seems to be a lot of confusion on the block hash check. The block hash check is a unique identifier of a block and has nothing to do with the state root. All value verifications is performed by the OOS Verifier contract as mentioned above

Support

FAQs

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