Lucene search
+L

6494 matches found

Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/20 12:00 a.m.•21 views

function withdraw() in StRSR won't update contract state (totalDrafts) in all cases which can cause wrong fund distribution and fund stucking in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function withdraw complete an account's unstaking. it transfers user draft withdrawals and updates totalDrafts. but when calculated rsrAmount is 0 code returns and won't updates totalDrafts which can cause wrong calculations as those draft items removed...

6.9AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•23 views

Proper use of dependecy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Using safeTransferFrom of solmate. There is no checking the token address is exist Proof of Concept After consulting the dev, the only check for making sure the token exist is a list on the UI/fontend side. A highly motivated attacker can easily disable...

6.9AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•22 views

User can lose 10 ethers to Vault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a user or a contract that has a large allowance 10 ethers or max on an ERC4626Cloned based Vault that has not yet received any deposits, calls mint with 0 share argument, will have a 10 ethers of the asset transferred to the Vault with no way to recla...

6.7AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•30 views

Overflow/Underflow in interest calculation caused by lack of timestamp validation in _getInterest() & _getRemainingInterest() function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker could manipulate the last timestamp of a lien in the stack struct to cause an underflow or overflow in the interest calculation. This could result in an incorrect interest amount being calculated, which could lead to incorrect payments being...

6.8AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•18 views

Reentrancy Vulnerability in stake() and unstake() functions.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can repeatedly call these functions and manipulate the state of the contract, potentially leading to a loss of funds for the users of the contract. For example, an attacker could repeatedly call the stake function, causing the attacker to...

7AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•12 views

Incorrect Trade Settlement in settleTrade() function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact /// Settle a single trade, expected to be used with multicall for efficient mass settlement /// @custom:refresher function settleTradeIERC20 sell external; This function takes in only a single IERC20 token as a parameter, with no other information about...

6.6AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•26 views

Front-run Initializer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In function: function initialize Authority AUTHORITY, ICollateralToken COLLATERALTOKEN, ILienToken LIENTOKEN, ITransferProxy TRANSFERPROXY, address VAULTIMPL, address SOLOIMPL, address WITHDRAWIMPL, address BEACONPROXYIMPL, address CLEARINGHOUSEIMPL...

6.8AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•22 views

Reentrancy in safeTransferFrom() in ClearingHouse.sol allows the attacker to withdraw the collateral, while still owning the borrowed assets.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Calling the function safeTransferFrom and passing in a custom, attacker controlled payment token allows the malicious actor to perform reentrancy. the following function clears the attacker of all debt,...

6.9AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•28 views

Solmate's ERC20 does not check for token contract's existence

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Not checking for token existence is a know issue for Solmate. This can cause unexpected contract functionality for transfers implemented in the codes. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all...

7AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•32 views

Wrong implementations in ERC4626RouterBase contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details The ERC4626RouterBase contract contains a set of functions that act as wrappers for a ERC4626 contract, providing a base periphery functionality around a ERC4626 vault. There are a number of different flaws in the wrapped implementations of mint, deposit,...

6.7AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•23 views

Infinite Loop Vulnerability in endIdForWithdraw() Function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact While loop within the endIdForWithdraw function. while left time test = left + right / 2; // left test right because left right - 1 if queuetest.availableAt = time left = test; else right = test; This loop can cause an infinite loop if the loop invariant...

6.8AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/19 12:00 a.m.•29 views

PublicVault Contract Allows Minting Tokens to a Null Address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The PublicVault contract allows the minting of tokens to a null address. When the redeemFutureEpoch function is called with a null address as the receiver, the function will still proceed with the minting of the underlying asset, but the tokens will not...

6.7AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/17 12:00 a.m.•21 views

Deny of service in CCash.sol with "transfer" which can be unusable for smart contract calls

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CCash.doTransferOut method is susceptible to denial of service. Proof of Concept The logic of the doTransferOut method in CCash is as follows: The whole user withdraw is being handled with a token.transfer call. This is unsafe as transfer has hard...

6.7AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/17 12:00 a.m.•23 views

Possiblity of storage collision

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a possibility of storage collision, when you upgrade the implementation contract in the . This could happen because the storage in the smart contract is stored the storage value from the left to the right, and if you add a new var to the storage...

6.7AI score
SaveExploits0
osv_rustsec
osv_rustsec
•added 2023/01/11 12:00 p.m.•34 views

RUSTSEC-2023-0005 `tokio::io::ReadHalf<T>::unsplit` is Unsound

tokio::io::ReadHalf::unsplit can violate the Pin contract The soundness issue is described in the tokio/issues5372 Specific set of conditions needed to trigger an issue a !Unpin type in ReadHalf is unusual, combined with the difficulty of making any arbitrary use-after-free exploitable in Rust...

7AI score
SaveExploits0References3
RustSec
RustSec
•added 2023/01/11 12:00 p.m.•37 views

`tokio::io::ReadHalf<T>::unsplit` is Unsound

tokio::io::ReadHalf::unsplit can violate the Pin contract The soundness issue is described in the tokio/issues5372 Specific set of conditions needed to trigger an issue a !Unpin type in ReadHalf is unusual, combined with the difficulty of making any arbitrary use-after-free exploitable in Rust...

1.6AI score
SaveExploits0Affected Software1
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/09 12:00 a.m.•18 views

Bypass depositFor Contract Check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Validation will pass for a contract in construction; an address where a contract will be created; an address where a contract lived, but was destroyed. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

6.9AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/09 12:00 a.m.•11 views

The owner's address is not declared as payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If someone sends ether to the contract, it would be highly possible that the ether could be locked forever or never withdrawn by its intended recipientOwner Proof of Concept Tools Used Manual Recommended Mitigation Steps Add "payable" keyword to the owne...

6.8AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/09 12:00 a.m.•13 views

when the 'v' value from a signature is 0, checkSignatures function can be tricked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when the v value of a signature is = 0, the 'checkSignatures' in entryPoint function doesn't check if the signer is the owner of the wallet and assumes that it is from a contract, a malicious party could craft a signature with the v value = 0, and...

6.7AI score
SaveExploits0
Code423n4
Code423n4
•added 2023/01/09 12:00 a.m.•19 views

Calling execute() and executeBatch() functions in SmartAccount.sol from the EntryPoint will fail

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function requireFromEntryPointOrOwner is being called within the execute and executeBatch functions to check if the msg.sender is either the owner or the EntryPoint contract, but these functions have onlyOwner modifier, which will only allow the owne...

7.2AI score
SaveExploits0
Rows per page
Query Builder