Closed code423n4 closed 1 year ago
Is it a bug or a feature point like the zero index is the first element. In addition, the submission does not provide any demonstration of the issue, reasoning and code blocks, security concern behind it.
0xSorryNotSorry marked the issue as primary issue
Sidu28 marked the issue as sponsor disputed
The definition is semantically ambiguous about whether this check should be strict or not. A time difference of 1 second in signature expiry will not have a serious impact regardless.
GalloDaSballo changed the severity to QA (Quality Assurance)
Downgrading to QA, but may close this
actually this should be marked as medium cause the delay of 1 seconds can cause many issues, as we do have a history to justify that. so ig this should be medium
Lines of code
https://github.com/Layr-Labs/eigenlayer-contracts/blob/dbeb85bcd0476e06b8feebf07e33f8a53d54c029/src/contracts/core/StrategyManager.sol#L263
Vulnerability details
Impact
expiry
should be >block.timestamp()
rather then >= the signature should expire at the timestamp, not when the timestamp is over, when the timestamp reaches, the signature should expireProof of Concept
In the function
depositIntoStrategyWithSignature
there is a condition that is checking ifexpiry >= block.timestamp
but it should be checking ifexpiry > block.timestamp
instead. the signature should expire when the block.timestamp reachesTools Used
manual review
Recommended Mitigation Steps
change it to
expiry > block.timestamp
Assessed type
Invalid Validation