Skip to content

Fix typo #394

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.

Sign up for GitHub

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

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
Feb 18, 2025
Merged

Fix typo #394

Changes from all commits
Commits
Show all changes
1 commit
Select commit
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
2 changes: 1 addition & 1 deletion not-so-smart-contracts/ton/forward_ton_without_gas_check/README.md
View file
Open in desktop
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -6,7 +6,7 @@ If a contract lacks such a gas check then users can specify a higher forward TON

## Example

The following simplified code highlights the lack of gas check. The following contract implements a `withdraw` operation that allows users to specify a forward TON amount to and forward payload to send with the Jettons. However, this contract does not chekc if used included enough TON with the `withdraw` message to cover for the `withdraw` message transaction, jetton transfer gas fee, and forward TON amount. This allows users to drain the TON balance of the smart contract.
The following simplified code highlights the lack of a gas check. The contract implements a `withdraw` operation that allows users to specify a forward TON amount and a forward payload to send with the Jettons. However, the contract does not check if the user included enough TON with the `withdraw` message to cover the `withdraw` message transaction, the Jetton transfer gas fee, and the forward TON amount. This allows users to drain the TON balance of the smart contract.

```FunC
#include "imports/stdlib.fc";
Expand Down
Loading