The constructor correctly validates the verifier address against address(0), but updateVerifier does not apply the same check, creating an inconsistency in input validation across the contract.
The owner could accidentally brick claim functionality by setting the verifier to address(0), requiring a follow-up updateVerifier call to recover.
Likelihood:
The missing zero address check is absent on every call to updateVerifier, meaning any invocation by the owner without explicit care can silently set the verifier to address(0).
The inconsistency with the constructor makes this easy to overlook during review or future modifications, as the protection exists in one path but not the other.
Impact:
The owner could accidentally brick claim functionality by setting the verifier to address(0), requiring a follow-up updateVerifier call to recover.
The contest is live. Earn rewards by submitting a finding.
This is your time to appeal against judgements on your submissions.
Appeals are being carefully reviewed by our judges.
The contest is complete and the rewards are being distributed.