Boost _ Folks Finance 33987 - [Smart Contract - Medium] Incorrect access control in receiveMessage l

Submitted on Sat Aug 03 2024 11:26:33 GMT-0400 (Atlantic Standard Time) by @QuantumKid for Boost | Folks Finance

Report ID: #33987

Report type: Smart Contract

Report severity: Medium

Target: https://testnet.snowtrace.io/address/0xa9491a1f4f058832e5742b76eE3f1F1fD7bb6837

Impacts:

• Direct theft of any user funds, whether at-rest or in-motion, other than unclaimed yield

Description

Brief/Intro

Due to incorrect adapter access control check in sendMessage function on BridgeRouter contract an attacker can use a malicious contract as adapter to drain the entire funds in the protocol.

Vulnerability Details

In the receiveMessage to check that whether msg.sender is valid adapter or not first the adapterId is being read from the adapterToId mapping as below

IBridgeAdapter adapter = IBridgeAdapter(msg.sender);
uint16 adapterId = adapterToId[adapter];

Then using that adapterId we check whether that adapterId has a non-zero adapter address in idToAdapter mapping as using below function.

    function isAdapterInitialized(uint16 adapterId) public view returns (bool) {
        IBridgeAdapter adapter = idToAdapter[adapterId];
        return (address(adapter) != address(0x0));
    }

But while adding adapter using below function if zero is used as a valid adapterId any address will be considered as a valid adapter.

    function addAdapter(uint16 adapterId, IBridgeAdapter adapter) external onlyRole(MANAGER_ROLE) {
        // check if no existing adapter
        if (isAdapterInitialized(adapterId)) revert AdapterInitialized(adapterId);

        // add adapter
        idToAdapter[adapterId] = adapter;
        adapterToId[adapter] = adapterId;
    }

For Example: Let's say 0x1234 is a valid adapter stored at adapterId zero. Then idToAdapter[0] = 0x1234 adapterToId[0x1234] = 0

Now a malicious contract 0xdead will also be considered as valid adapter because adapterToId[0xdead] = 0 and isAdapterInitialized(0) will return true as a valid adapter is already initialized with zero as adapterId.

Impact Details

As any arbitrary contract is considered as a valid adapter. An attacker can use a malicious adapter contract to pass fake messages to drain the entire protocol.

References

From tests it seems like zero is a valid adapterId

  async function addAdapterFixture() {
    const { admin, messager, unusedUsers, bridgeRouter, bridgeRouterAddress } =
      await loadFixture(deployBridgeRouterFixture);

    // deploy and add adapter
    const adapter = await new MockAdapter__factory(admin).deploy(bridgeRouterAddress);
@>  const adapterId = 0;
    const adapterAddress = await adapter.getAddress();
    await bridgeRouter.connect(admin).addAdapter(adapterId, adapterAddress);
  }

Proof of concept

Proof of Concept

Add this to add adapter tests in /test/bridge/BridgeRouter.test.ts file.

    it("Arbitrary contract will be considered as a valid adapter.", async () => {
      const { bridgeRouter, adapterId, adapterAddress } = await loadFixture(addAdapterFixture);

      // verify adapter was added
      expect(await bridgeRouter.isAdapterInitialized(adapterId)).to.be.true;
      expect(await bridgeRouter.idToAdapter(adapterId)).to.equal(adapterAddress);
      expect(await bridgeRouter.adapterToId(adapterAddress)).to.equal(adapterId);
      // Random address is considered as a valid adapter.
      expect(await bridgeRouter.isAdapterInitialized(await bridgeRouter.adapterToId(getRandomAddress()))).to.be.true;
    });