Use `call()` instead of `transfer()` while dealing with `eth`

[code423n4]

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L86 https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/xc20/contracts/XC20Wrapper.sol#L63

Vulnerability details

Impact

• The use of the deprecated transfer() function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when:
• The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function.
• 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.

Proof of Concept

• https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L23
• https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/contracts/deposit-service/ReceiverImplementation.sol#L86
• https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-07-axelar/blob/9c4c44b94cddbd48b9baae30051a4e13cbe39539/xc20/contracts/XC20Wrapper.sol#L63
• ......

function receiveAndUnwrapNative(address payable refundAddress, address payable recipient) external {
  .......................
    IWETH9(wrappedTokenAddress).withdraw(amount);
    recipient.transfer(amount);
    .........
  }

Tools Used

• manual analysis

  Recommended Mitigation Steps

• Use call()

[GalloDaSballo]

See #203

[re1ro]

Duplicate of #4