Use a two-step process when assigning control over a contract to a different address

[code423n4]

Handle

Ruhum

Vulnerability details

Impact

Assigning a new address to be in control of a contract should always be done in a two-step process. Otherwise, you might potentially lose access by assigning it to an address for which you don't have the key. By using a two-step process you make sure that everything works as expected.

Using the current owner you assign a new pending owner. Using the pending owner you then claim ownership. The current owner is then overwritten by the pending one and the pending owner address is cleared.

Proof of Concept

https://github.com/code-423n4/2021-12-yetifinance/blob/main/packages/contracts/contracts/YetiFinanceTreasury.sol#L28

Tools Used

none

Recommended Mitigation Steps

Check out the Compound Timelock contract as an example: https://github.com/compound-finance/compound-protocol/blob/master/contracts/Timelock.sol#L45-L58

[kingyetifinance]

@LilYeti: Duplicate #115 . Severity there is 1.

[alcueca]

Duplicate of #251