When we are sending money to the recipient, nothing prevents a second recursive call to finalizeRequest. Even though the function is restricted, the recipient could pass control to the manager, who would then execute a recursive call. In this way, the manager, in cooperation with a vendor, could get an approval for a small amount, but withdraw many times that amount.
Technically, it would a solution to check that manager is a human and not a smart contract, but no such check is being done. Furthermore, one could make an innocent-looking smart contract, pretending it's just a convenience tool for the manager, in case someone decides to look, but keep it upgradable to leave a backdoor.
Update: the proposed solution is to interchange the last two lines, setting the flag to true before doing the transfer.
When we are sending money to the recipient, nothing prevents a second recursive call to finalizeRequest. Even though the function is restricted, the recipient could pass control to the manager, who would then execute a recursive call. In this way, the manager, in cooperation with a vendor, could get an approval for a small amount, but withdraw many times that amount.
Technically, it would a solution to check that manager is a human and not a smart contract, but no such check is being done. Furthermore, one could make an innocent-looking smart contract, pretending it's just a convenience tool for the manager, in case someone decides to look, but keep it upgradable to leave a backdoor.
Update: the proposed solution is to interchange the last two lines, setting the flag to true before doing the transfer.