C4 S-470 Do not cache chain id #81
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ScreamingHawk
force-pushed
the
c4-s470
branch
from
0958bb5 to
1668d49
Compare
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
S-470 Signature Validation Permanently Bricked by Stale chainid in
DOMAIN_SEPARATORhttps://code4rena.com/audits/2025-11-sequence-transaction-rails/submissions/S-470
Issue: Chain id is hashed and cached, causing issues if chain ever updates the chain id.
Analysis: If a chain ever forks and updates it's chain id the new chain will continue to expect the old chain id. This is a very unlikely scenario, however as we work with new custom chain provider we have had clients suggest such an approach to fix state issues.
Fix: Calculate domain separator using chain id at runtime.
Note: I've retained the
function DOMAIN_SEPARATOR() publicfor backwards compatibility with integrations. This is probably not necessary