CALL() SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSFER() ON AN ADDRESS PAYABLE

[code423n4]

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-connext/blob/4dd6149748b635f95460d4c3924c7e3fb6716967/contracts/contracts/test/TestSponsorVault.sol#L30

Vulnerability details

CALL() SHOULD BE USED INSTEAD OF TRANSFER() ON AN ADDRESS PAYABLE https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-connext/blob/4dd6149748b635f95460d4c3924c7e3fb6716967/contracts/contracts/test/TestSponsorVault.sol#L30 The use of the deprecated transfer() function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when:

-The claimer smart contract does implement a payable fallback which uses more than 2300 gas unit. -The claimer smart contract implements a payable fallback function that needs less than 2300 gas units but is called through proxy, raising the call’s gas usage above 2300 and using higher than 2300 gas might be mandatory for some multisig wallets. -The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function.

[ecmendenhall]

This finding is in a test helper contract.

[jakekidd]

Closing as invalid since, as @ecmendenhall noted, this finding is in a test helper contract.

[0xleastwood]

Agreed, this looks to be out-of-scope.