ecrecover zero-address return unchecked
Convex Finance's assessment for RD-F-019 — scored green on the v1.7.0 rubric. The evidence below is the curator's reasoning for this score.
Evidence summary #
CvxLockerV2 source and Booster confirmed to have no ecrecover calls. Convex does not implement EIP-2612 permit-style signatures in its core contracts. No ecrecover usage found across all inspected contracts (Booster, VoterProxy, CvxLockerV2, BaseRewardPool, ExtraRewardStashV3).
Sources #
- EtherscanCvxLockerV2 source (Etherscan - no ecrecover calls)CvxLockerV2 - no ecrecover confirmed via analysisretrieved 2026-05-16
- Convex Booster.sol source (no EIP-712 or ecrecover usage)Booster.sol - no ecrecover / EIP-2612retrieved 2026-05-16
Methodology #
Determine whether any `ecrecover` call result is used without a `!= address(0)` guard.
See the full factor methodology and distribution across all protocols →
rubric_version v1.7.0 protocol convex-finance factor RD-F-019 score green collected_at 2026-05-16 02:41:28