Submitted by Kumpa
AuraLocker.sol#L258-L295
Without restriction on the type of address that lock the token, a bad actor could lock the token through the smart contract. Doing so enable him to make the lockedToken becomes liquidate by tokenize his smart contract which defeat the purpose of the lockedToken that is supposed to be untransferable. Moreover, a bad actor could attract people to lock the token through his smart contract instead of directly locking with AuraLocker by injecting better short-term incentives to his wrapper token. This enable the bad actor to accumulate voting power that could dictate the future of the protocol.
It would be best to check whether the locker is the smart contract or the wallet and, if the protocol wants the smart contract to be the locker, it can implement the whitelist or blacklist.
0xMaharishi (Aura Finance) acknowledged, but disagreed with severity and commented:
LSDan (judge) decreased severity to Medium and commented:
0xMaharishi (Aura Finance) resolved:
