Closed
Conversation
Proposed fix for wrong oracle on access control exploit.
Collaborator
Author
|
We discuss on the patch with @mokita-j , we maintain the original exploit. |
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
1 participant
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Proposed fix for the wrong oracle on an access control exploit, proxy_test.sol.
According to our plausible analysis, this exploit was not doing the correct exploit check.
@mokita-j
Can you confirm and review the proposed fix?
Here is my reasoning extracted from our shared spreadsheet:
The forward method should have been protected from being called by external contracts, instead, the patch changes delegate to call only.
The exploit should check for access control instead. This correlates with the fix on the contract's source: https://smartcontractsecurity.github.io/SWC-registry/docs/SWC-112#proxysol