Design/Logic Flaw

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The proposal creation entrypoint propose in GovernorCompatibilityBravo allows the creation of proposals with a signatures array shorter than the calldatas array. This causes the additional elements of the latter to be...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #17 [1681332048307]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 17 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-07 First user that stakes again after a period without stakers receives too many rewards The MuteAmplifier contract pays out rewards on a per second basis. Let's assume there is only 1 staker which is Bob. Say Bob...

ReraiseETHCrowdfund.sol: Multiple scenarios how pending votes might not be claimable which is a complete loss of funds for a user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This issue is about how the ReraiseETHCrowdfund claim functionality can be broken. When the claim functionality is broken this means that a user cannot claim his voting power, resulting in a complete loss of funds. The claim functionality is not broken i...

ETHCrowdfundBase.sol: totalVotingPower is increased too much in the _finalize function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This issue is about how the ETHCrowdfundBase.finalize functions calls PartyGovernanceNFT.increaseTotalVotingPower with an amount that does not reflect the sum of the individual users' voting power. Thereby it will become impossible to reach unanimous...

ETHCrowdfundBase.sol: all funds are lost when fee recipient cannot receive ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the ETHCrowdfundBase contract a fundingSplitRecipient address is configured which receives a percentage of the funds in case the crowdfund is won. Neither the fundingSplitRecipient address nor the fundingSplitBps percentage can be changed. The issue i...

CVE-2023-29417

An issue was discovered in libbzip3.a in bzip3 1.2.2. There is a bz3decompress out-of-bounds read in certain situations where buffers passed to bzip3 do not contain enough space to be filled with decompressed data. NOTE: the vendor's perspective is that the observed behavior can only occur for a...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #44 [1680620528235]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 44 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Low 1 RescueTokens doesn't have checks for fee0 & fee1 tokens. Admin might accidentally withdraw fee tokens that are supposed to be for the stakers: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were...

MuteAmplifier.rescueTokens() should check conditions for fee tokens(token0/token1) as well

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact rescueTokens can be used to withdraw fee tokens without any validations. As a result, the reward logic would be broken due to the lack of fee tokens. Proof of Concept rescueTokens doesn't validate anything for the fee tokens. So if some fee tokens were...

A malicious frontrunner can make the Mutebond contract broken when the owner decreases maxPayout

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Mutebond contract might stop working after the owner decreased maxPayout by a malicious frontrunner. Proof of Concept setMaxPayout can be used to reset maxPayout. function setMaxPayoutuint payout external requiremsg.sender == customTreasury.owner;...

Owner lowering max payout might break the MuteBonds contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details The maxPayout variable can be changed by the owner at any time. In case the owner lowers the maxPayout and the payoutTotal of the current epoch is greater than the new maxPayout the contract will be broken - no further deposit can be made, and most of the view...

An edge case in amplifier allows user to stake after end time, causing reward to be locked in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept Observe that if nobody has staked after the period has ended, it's still possible for a single user to stake even though the period has ended. if firstStakeTime == 0 firstStakeTime = block.timestamp; else requireblock.timestamp if...

MuteBond is susceptible to DOS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept Observe that if timeToTokens is called with locktime = 1 week, amount 52, it will return 0. function timeToTokensuint256 amount, uint256 locktime internal pure returns uint256 uint256 weektime = 1 weeks; uint256 maxlock = 52 weeks;...

MuteBond.sol: When maxPayout is lowered the contract can end up DOSed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The maxPayout variable in the MuteBond contract specifies the amount of MUTE that is paid out in one epoch before the next epoch is entered. The variable is initialized in the constructor and can then be changed via the setMaxPayout function. The issue...

Reth deposit conditionally relies on unreliable price source.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Deposits are exposed to unnecessary risk by using Uni v3 Weth/Reth Pool as an oracle. It is also possible for staking to be inoperable due to over/underflow. Proof of Concept In the event of !poolCanDepositmsg.value in Reth.sol deposit, this derivative...

All the FRX_ETH tokens of SfrxEth contract can be drained by a malicious user.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The impact of this finding is severe, as it can result in the complete loss of FRXETH tokens held by the SfrxEth contract. This could lead to a significant financial loss for the contract and its users. Proof of Concept For demonstration purpose, Alice i...

Reth griefing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The maximum slippage when buying rETH from the Uniswap V3 pool is calculated in Reth derivative contract by taking the current price in the Uniswap V3 pool at runtime, without taking into account the price at which the user sent the transaction to the...

Ether trapped in contract if no derivates exist

Lines of code Vulnerability details Ether can get stuck in staking contract if there are no derivatives Impact If the SafEth contract is deployed and there are no derivatives added to the contract and a user tries to call the stake function, then this could result in a loss of funds for the user...

User should be able to set the slippage amount willing to pay

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The impact of this finding is that users may be required to pay higher transaction fees than necessary due to the absence of an adjustable slippage feature. This could discourage users from using the SafEth contract and negatively impact its adoption...

withdraw function of WstEth derivative contract probably sends wrong ETH amount back to owner contract/user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Sends the wrong amount of ETH back to owner contract/user. In most cases, probably way too much, it sends the entire contract ETH balance. All the other calculations in the withdraw function seem correct, from what can be seen, but, as is the case with...

An attacker can manipulate the preDepositvePrice to steal from other users.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first user that stakes can manipulate the total supply of sfTokens and by doing so create a rounding error for each subsequent user. In the worst case, an attacker can steal all the funds of the next user. Proof of Concept When the first user enters...