Boost _ Folks Finance 33280 - [Smart Contract - Low] NodeManagersupportsInterface doesnt follow EIP-

Submitted on Tue Jul 16 2024 23:29:16 GMT-0400 (Atlantic Standard Time) by @chista0x for Boost | Folks Finance

Report ID: #33280

Report type: Smart Contract

Report severity: Low

Target: https://testnet.snowtrace.io/address/0xA758c321DF6Cd949A8E074B22362a4366DB1b725

Impacts:

• Contract fails to deliver promised returns, but doesn't lose value

• Griefing (e.g. no profit motive for an attacker, but damage to the users or the protocol)

Description

Brief/Intro

The NodeManager contract incorrectly implements the supportsInterface function, which fails to comply with the EIP-165 standard. As a result, it incorrectly returns false for the EIP-165 interface ID 0x01ffc9a7. This could lead to compatibility issues with other contracts and systems that rely on correct EIP-165 interface support.

Vulnerability Details:

The NodeManager contract implements the INodeManager interface, which extends IERC165, and is therefore expected to comply with EIP-165. According to EIP-165, the supportsInterface function should return:

• true for the 0x01ffc9a7 (EIP-165 interface ID)

• false for the 0xffffffff

• true for any other interfaceID this contract implements

• false for any other interfaceID

However, NodeManager.supportsInterface() currently returns false for 0x01ffc9a7, which is incorrect.

The relevant code snippet from NodeManager is:

/// @notice Checks if the contract supports an interface.
/// @param interfaceId The ID of the interface to check.
/// @return A boolean indicating whether the contract supports the interface.
function supportsInterface(bytes4 interfaceId) external pure override returns (bool) {
    return interfaceId == type(INodeManager).interfaceId;
}

Impact Details

The incorrect implementation of supportsInterface can lead to major compatibility issues. Contracts and systems that check for EIP-165 compliance may fail to interact with NodeManager correctly. This could cause failures in contract interactions, integrations, and potentially lead to the malfunction of decentralized applications relying on NodeManager.

Recommendation:

Update the supportsInterface function as follows:

/// @notice Checks if the contract supports an interface.
/// @param interfaceId The ID of the interface to check.
/// @return A boolean indicating whether the contract supports the interface.
function supportsInterface(bytes4 interfaceId) external pure override returns (bool) {
-    return interfaceId == type(INodeManager).interfaceId;
+    return interfaceId == this.supportsInterface.selector;
}

References

• NodeManager.supportsInterface() implementation
• EIP-165 Standard

Proof of concept

Proof of Concept

Add the following code to the test file test/oracle/modules/NodeManager.test.ts:

describe("Chista0x-NodeManager", () => {
  it("Should successfully supportInterface with 0x01ffc9a7", async () => {
    const state = await nodeManager.supportsInterface("0x01ffc9a7");
    expect(state).to.be.equal(true);
  });

  it("Should successfully supportInterface with 0xffffffff", async () => {
    const state = await nodeManager.supportsInterface("0xffffffff");
    expect(state).to.be.equal(false);
  });

  it("Should successfully supportInterface with 0x12345678", async () => {
    const state = await nodeManager.supportsInterface("0x12345678");
    expect(state).to.be.equal(false);
  });  
});

Run the test with the command npx hardhat test --grep "Chista0x-NodeManager"

Test output:

  NodeManager
    Chista0x-NodeManager
      1) Should successfully supportInterface with 0x01ffc9a7
      ✔ Should successfully supportInterface with 0xffffffff
      ✔ Should successfully supportInterface with 0x12345678

  2 passing (3s)
  1 failing

  1) NodeManager
       Chista0x-NodeManager
         Should successfully supportInterface with 0x01ffc9a7:

      AssertionError: expected false to equal true
      + expected - actual

      -false
      +true

      at Context.<anonymous> (test\oracle\modules\NodeManager.test.ts:68:27)