31309 - [SC - Critical] slippage protection is inaccurate

Submitted on May 16th 2024 at 21:08:22 UTC by @jasonxiale for Boost | Alchemix

Report ID: #31309

Report type: Smart Contract

Report severity: Critical

Target: https://github.com/alchemix-finance/alchemix-v2-dao/blob/main/src/RevenueHandler.sol

Impacts:

  • Protocol insolvency

Description

Brief/Intro

RevenueHandler._melt is used to swap normal token to alAsset(for example: WETH->alETH), but the slippage protection is inaccurate. So the function is subject to sandwich attack.

Vulnerability Details

Function RevenueHandler._melt is used to swap normal token to alAsset(for example: WETH -> alETH), and the function uses IERC20(revenueToken).balanceOf(address(this)); as slippage protection.

The issue is that the price between normal token and alAsset isn't 1:1, based on althe and weth, the ratio between WETH and alETH is about 30:27. So it means that the protocol will use 3000$ WETH to swap for 2700$ alETH. Acutally, this is the same issue as https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2024-04-alchemix-judging/issues/5

275     function _melt(address revenueToken) internal returns (uint256) {
276         RevenueTokenConfig storage tokenConfig = revenueTokenConfigs[revenueToken];
277         address poolAdapter = tokenConfig.poolAdapter;
278         uint256 revenueTokenBalance = IERC20(revenueToken).balanceOf(address(this));
279         if (revenueTokenBalance == 0) {
280             return 0;
281         }
282         IERC20(revenueToken).safeTransfer(poolAdapter, revenueTokenBalance);
283         /*  
284             minimumAmountOut == inputAmount
285             Here we are making the assumption that the price of the alAsset will always be at or below the price of the revenue token.
286             This is currently a safe assumption since this imbalance has always held true for alUSD and alETH since their inceptions.
287         */
288         return
289             IPoolAdapter(poolAdapter).melt(
290                 revenueToken,
291                 tokenConfig.debtToken,
292                 revenueTokenBalance,
293                 revenueTokenBalance <<<--- Here IERC20(revenueToken).balanceOf(address(this)) is used as slippage protection.
294             );
295     }

Impact Details

RevenueHandler._melt is used to swap normal token to alAsset(for example: WETH->alETH), but the slippage protection is inaccurate. So the function is subject to sandwich attack.

References

https://github.com/sherlock-audit/2024-04-alchemix-judging/issues/5

Proof of Concept

Because there is no WETH/ALETH Curve pool onchain, I will use ETH/ALETH pool as example.

Add the following code in src/test/RevenueHandler.t.sol and run

As we can see above, by using 1e18 weth, we can exchage 1012512998195120273 aleth. But if we set minimumAmountOut == inputAmount. Sandwich attack might happen

Last updated

Was this helpful?