This could be considered as a DoS attack too?

[pymachado]

In Lesson 34: Mishandling of ETH: Minimized in the PuppyRaffle security review, we checked a line of code like the one below:

require(address(this).balance == uint256(totalFees), "PuppyRaffle: There are currently players active!");

When the vulnerability is exploited by a Smart Contract attacker who uses selfdestruct() to force the victim contract to receive ether, it renders the above instruction unusable because now address(this).balance > uint256(totalFees). This results in the contract becoming unusable because you can't call the PuppRaffe::withdraw function again. Therefore, this can be considered a DoS attack, as users have been denied the service of withdrawal?

[PatrickAlphaC]

Sure could be :)

Often, one type of attack could fall in many categorizations of attacks.

Way to think critically on this!

[pymachado]

Okay @PatrickAlphaC, thank you for your feedback