Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

the reentrancy rules is out-of-date #447

Open
smartcontract-detect-yzu opened this issue Jul 11, 2023 · 2 comments
Open

the reentrancy rules is out-of-date #447

smartcontract-detect-yzu opened this issue Jul 11, 2023 · 2 comments
Labels
awaiting user feedback awaiting user feedback

Comments

@smartcontract-detect-yzu

The send() cannot trigger the reentrancy. Meanwhile, the rule do not check the .call.value() can cause the reentrancy vulnerability.

@dbale-altoros dbale-altoros added the awaiting user feedback awaiting user feedback label Jul 21, 2023
@dbale-altoros
Copy link
Collaborator

@smartcontract-detect-yzu

Thanks a lot for posting !
Can you expand a little the issue you posted by putting some examples or giving further information ?
Thanks!

@gcf3711
Copy link

gcf3711 commented Aug 13, 2024

@smartcontract-detect-yzu

Thanks a lot for posting ! Can you expand a little the issue you posted by putting some examples or giving further information ? Thanks!

In this [document] (https://ethereum-contract-security-techniques-and-tips.readthedocs.io/en/latest/recommendations/#be-aware-of-the-tradeoffs-between-send-transfer-and-callvalue) published by Consensys, it states that "someAddress.send()and someAddress.transfer() are considered safe against reentrancy".

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
awaiting user feedback awaiting user feedback
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants