Closed c4-bot-5 closed 8 months ago
0xleastwood marked the issue as satisfactory
This is a duplicate of #13, as mentioned we believe it should be marked as Medium not High
I think this should be duplicate of #24, #14.
address(0)
. The same lines of code.jooleseth marked the issue as disagree with severity
jooleseth (sponsor) acknowledged
0xleastwood removed the grade
0xleastwood marked the issue as duplicate of #24
0xleastwood changed the severity to 2 (Med Risk)
Agree with medium severity, user's funds are not at risk here.
0xleastwood marked the issue as satisfactory
Lines of code
https://github.com/code-423n4/2024-02-thruster/blob/main/thruster-protocol/thruster-clmm/contracts/ThrusterPoolDeployer.sol#L46
Vulnerability details
Proof of Concept
ThrusterPoolDeployer contract is used to deploy new pools. It is configured to claim used gas.
But it will not claim anything, as it uses address(0) as contract to claim gas for instead of address(this).
Impact
Lost of gas fees for protocol.
Tools Used
VsCode
Recommended Mitigation Steps
Claim gas for
address(this)
address.Assessed type
Error