We read every piece of feedback, and take your input very seriously.
To see all available qualifiers, see our documentation.
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 send() cannot trigger the reentrancy. Meanwhile, the rule do not check the .call.value() can cause the reentrancy vulnerability.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered:
@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!
Sorry, something went wrong.
@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".
No branches or pull requests
The send() cannot trigger the reentrancy. Meanwhile, the rule do not check the .call.value() can cause the reentrancy vulnerability.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: