ERROR IN UPDATING **_checkpoint** IN THE **increaseUnlockTime** FUNCTION

[code423n4]

Lines of code

https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-fiatdao/blob/main/contracts/VotingEscrow.sol#L513-L514

Vulnerability details

Impact

The potentiel impact of this error are :

• Give wrong voting power to a user at a given block.
• Give wrong total voting power at a given block.
• Give wrong total voting power.

Proof of Concept

The error occured in this line : https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-08-fiatdao/blob/main/contracts/VotingEscrow.sol#L513

In the increaseUnlockTime function the oldLocked.end passed to the function _checkpoint is wrong as it is the same as the new newLock end time (called unlock_time) instead of being equal to oldUnlockTime .

In the given CheckpointMath.md file it is stated that checkpoint details for increaseUnlockTime function should be :

Lock	amount	end
old	owner.delegated	owner.end
new	owner.delegated	T

BUT with this error you get a different checkpoint details :

Lock	amount	end
old	owner.delegated	T
new	owner.delegated	T

The error is illustrated in the code below :

        LockedBalance memory locked_ = locked[msg.sender];
        uint256 unlock_time = _floorToWeek(_unlockTime); // Locktime is rounded down to weeks
        /* @audit comment
                 the unlock_time represent the newLock end time
        */
        // Validate inputs
        require(locked_.amount > 0, "No lock");
        require(unlock_time > locked_.end, "Only increase lock end");
        require(unlock_time <= block.timestamp + MAXTIME, "Exceeds maxtime");
        // Update lock
        uint256 oldUnlockTime = locked_.end;
        locked_.end = unlock_time;
        /* @audit comment
                 The locked_ end time is update from  oldUnlockTime  ==>  unlock_time
        */
        locked[msg.sender] = locked_;
        if (locked_.delegatee == msg.sender) {
            // Undelegated lock
            require(oldUnlockTime > block.timestamp, "Lock expired");
            LockedBalance memory oldLocked = _copyLock(locked_);
            oldLocked.end = unlock_time;
            /* @audit comment
                 The oldLocked.end is set to unlock_time instead of   oldUnlockTime 
            */
            _checkpoint(msg.sender, oldLocked, locked_);
        }

The impact of this is when calculating the userOldPoint.bias in the _checkpoint function you get an incorrect value equal to userNewPoint.bias (because oldLocked.end == _newLocked.end which is wrong).

240        userOldPoint.bias =
241                    userOldPoint.slope *
242                    int128(int256(_oldLocked.end - block.timestamp));

The wrong userOldPoint.bias value is later used to calculate and update the bias value for the new point in PointHistory.

359       lastPoint.bias =
360                  lastPoint.bias +
361                  userNewPoint.bias -
362                  userOldPoint.bias;

372       pointHistory[epoch] = lastPoint;

And added to that the wrong oldLocked.end is used to get oldSlopeDelta value which is used to update the slopeChanges.

271       oldSlopeDelta = slopeChanges[_oldLocked.end];

380       oldSlopeDelta = oldSlopeDelta + userOldPoint.slope;
381       if (_newLocked.end == _oldLocked.end) {
382                  oldSlopeDelta = oldSlopeDelta - userNewPoint.slope; // It was a new deposit, not extension
383        }
384       slopeChanges[_oldLocked.end] = oldSlopeDelta;

As the PointHistory and the slopeChanges values are used inside the functions balanceOfAt() , _supplyAt(), totalSupply(), totalSupplyAt() to calculate the voting power, THIS ERROR COULD GIVE WRONG VOTING POWER AT A GIVEN BLOCK OF A USER OR CAN GIVE WRONG TOTAL VOTING POWER.

Tools Used

Manual Audit

Recommended Mitigation Steps

The line 513 in the VotingEscrow.sol contract :

      513      oldLocked.end = unlock_time;

Need to be replaced with the following :

      513      oldLocked.end = oldUnlockTime;

[lacoop6tu]

As majority of wardens reported, this is Medium finding 2 — Med: Assets not at direct risk, but the function of the protocol or its availability could be impacted, or leak value with a hypothetical attack path with stated assumptions, but external requirements.

[gititGoro]

The severity will be downgraded but otherwise a good report.

Note to the warden: this was a very well compiled report but it is important to make sure the risk label is appropriate as it can be the deciding factor in setting an issue to original or duplicate. Try also to avoid using all caps to emphasize a point as it's the internet's default way of shouting. Rather use markdown syntax such as bold or italics.