Pool: The EMERGENCY state cannot be recovered

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner can call Pool.adminAction to set the Pool contract state to EMERGENCY, and in the EMERGENCY state, no liquidity can be added or transferred, and no swaps can be made. However, the Pool contract does not have a function to recover the EMERGENCY...

Missing ReEntrancy Guard to executeAcceptBidWithCredit function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if the mint was initiated by a contract, then the contract is checked for its ability to receive ERC721 tokens. Without reentrancy guard, onERC721Received will allow an attacker controlled contract to call the mint again, which may not be desirable to so...

Implementation can be self destruct by deployer, effectively break all running sale and lock all assets.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Sale in Escher is deployed using minimal proxy pattern, where there is only 1 implementation contract is deployed to save deployment gas. Also, in Open Edition and FixedPrice sale, when sale is not started yet, owner can cancel it, self destruct the prox...

transfer is used on address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The codebase makes heavy use of the deprecated transfer function of address payable. Its will inevitably make the transaction fail when: 1. The receiver smart contract does not implement a payable function. 2. The receiver smart contract does...

The Ether for an LPDA mint sale can be locked in the LPDA contract indefinitely

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After a mint sale using LPDA, all the Ether can be locked in the LPDA contract indefinitely. Proof of Concept In the src/minters/ contracts, the .transfer function is used for sending Ether. It is used for sending fees to the feeReceiver, and in the...

Loss of ETH for NFT buyers in LPDA contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buy function of LPDA sale contract can be invoked with 0 as the input value and 0 ETH as the sent valuemsg.value = 0. The buy function automatically ends the sale when newId == sale.finalId and distributes ETH to feeReceiver and saleReceiver. Since t...

Implementing Security Restrictions and Owner Access Controls on LPDA Smart Contract.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Impact The new changes to the contract add an additional layer of security and restrict access to certain privileged functions. The buy function now requires that only the owner can purchase tokens, which prevents malicious actors from...

Ownership of EscherERC721.sol contracts can be changed, thus creator roles become useless

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact creator = has a CREATORROLE in Escher.sol non-creator = doesn't have a CREATORROLE in Escher.sol Currently creating an ERC721 edition via the Escher721Factory.sol contract requires a user to have the CREATORROLE in the main Escher.sol contract. This...

wrong configuration can lock eth in LPDA contract forever

Lines of code Vulnerability details When creating an LPDA auction there are some sanity checks of the values used for the auction. But there is no check that the auction will not cause the price calculation to underflow after a while. This calculation of the price can underflow in getPrice in...

Dutch auction getPrice() formula can lead to price reaching 0 and eventually reverting and locking the function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the function getPrice the current price is calculated by taking the start price and subtracting the product of dropPersecond and time elapsed. start price - dropPreSecond timeElapsed. The issue with this is that given the right inputs for dropPerSecon...

Malicious feeReceiver or saleReceiver can steal the user's refund ETH by calling the buy function multiple times in LPDA

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LPDA contract, the fee is transfered to feeReceiver and the totalSale to saleReceiver when newId == temp.finalId, meaning that the amount of tokens that were minted has been reached. However, the call to the internal end function only emits an eve...

call() should be used instead of transfer() on an address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact call should be used instead of transfer on an address payable Proof of Concept The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when: 1. The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function...

If very few NFTs have been sold saleReceiver will have to buy all remaining NFT to retrieve the contract funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If very few NFTs have been sold saleReceiver will have to buy all remaining NFTs if he want to get the funds that he obtained during the mint period. Fortunately, It is still possible to mint NFT after temp.endTime because the following check is not done...

NFTs mintable after Auction deadline expires

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buy function on the LPDA.sol contract is not validating if the auction is still running, allowing a purchase to be made after the stipulated time. The endtime variable used to store the end date of the auction is not used at any point to validate...

Ether can be lost in LPDA contract if sale.dropPerSecond is set improperly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function createLPDASale requires only sale.dropPerSecond 0 but if sale.dropPerSecond sale.startPrice / sale.endTime - sale.startTime function getPrice will revert except the case when all editions are sold before reaching negative price. Therefore, the b...

double user token spending in function executeBuyWithCredit() contract transfer user wETH fund for wETH orders even when user send payment as ETH to contract and contract converted it to wETH (_depositETH() and _delegateToPool() takes user funds when user sends ETH and tries to buy WETH order)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when user wants to buy NFT tokens with wETH asset, and he/she sent ETH to executeBuyWithCredit or executeBatchBuyWithCredit, code would take user tokens two times, one as ETH token in depositETH and one as wETH tokens in delegateToPool so users would pay...

Anyone can call addLiquidity function and be the router

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call addLiquidity, meaning that when IAddLiquidityCallbackmsg.sender.addLiquidityCallbacktokenAAmount, tokenBAmount, data; is called, the msg.sender can be a contract that a malicious user has deployed and has a addLiquidityCallbacktokenAAmoun...

Actor can input malicious data in the swap function inputs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function swap has a data input parameter, which can be defined by the caller. Any user could therefore define a token address that they will send. By doing so user could create their own token and send it instead of tokenA and receive tokenB for free. By...

Upgraded Q -> H from #439 [1670433195074]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 439 as H risk. The relevant finding follows: L02 - close should not be able to close a specific id credit line As per the docs: Can a Borrower chose to repay any debt in any order? No. The app automatically selects which credit line can be repaid using a...

Upgraded Q -> M from #35 [1670345543949]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 35 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: No. 2 Any smart contract that uses transfer or send is taking a hard dependency on gas costs by forwarding a fixed amount of gas: 2300. If gas costs are subject to change, then smart contracts can’t depend on any...