Using safeTransferFrom() Functions But without Getting the Approval

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact 2 safeTransferFrom calls are Used for ERC20 Token Line: 90, 172 using SafeTransferLib But without getting the Approval using safeApprove function. The Calls will always fail. 3 more safeTransferFrom calls are Used for ERC721 Tokens Line: 239, 259, 370...

Possible Reentrancy Vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Add function, in case of non Eth Base Token, LP Tokens are minted for LP Provider before transferring the Base Token from Provider to Contract. In remove function, Fractional Tokens are Transferred to LP Provider before Burning the LP Token. In wrap...

OptimisticListingSeaport: pendingBalances overwritten instead of increased

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The functions list and cash overwrite the current value instead of increasing it: pendingBalancesvaultactiveListing.proposer = activeListing.collateral; pendingBalancesvaultactiveListing.proposer = collateral; This can be very problematic because the val...

IERC20.transfer does not support all ERC20 token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Proof of Concept Token like USDT known for using non-standard ERC20. Missing return boolean on transfer. Contract function handleDeposit will always revert when try to transferfrom this kind of tokens. Tools Used manual review Recommended Mitigation Step...

ERC20 approvals may need to be set to 0 beforehand

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are some instances where there is an ERC20 approval for a max uint256 amount. ERC20 tokens such as USDT require the address allowance to be set to 0 beforehand, so this would cause reverts for those tokens. Proof of Concept -Token such as USDT gets...

ERC20 can be mistakenly used instead of ERC721

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact // Attempt to transfer token into this address try IERC721EnumerableUpgradeablesettings.token.transferFrom // @audit could use ERC20 here msg.sender, addressthis, settings.tokenId catch revert TOKENNEEDSTOBEAPPROVEDTOCONTRACT; Both ERC20 and ERC721 has t...

Lack of access control for sweepToken, refundETH, unwrapWETH9 in Router.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lack of access control for sweepToken, refundETH, unwrapWETH9 in Router.sol, any WETH token, ETH and ERC20 sent to Router.sol is lost and claimable to anyone. Proof of Concept the function unwrapWETH9 and sweepToken and refundETH has no access control an...

unsafe transfer/TransferFrom breaks functionality of Collateral.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The ERC20 specification does not demand implementations to revert when the transfer and transferFrom functions fail. They may use the return value to signal the success code. Some tokens, like ZRX, indeed don't revert. In Collateral deposit and...

Insufficient support for fee-on-transfer type of ERC20

Lines of code Vulnerability details Some ERC20 token implementations have a fee that is charged on each token transfer. This means that the transferred amount isn't exactly what the receiver will get. A call to IERC20token.transferrecipient, 100 with a fee-on-transfer FOT of 5% will entitle the...

Users can get free collateral when using non-reverting on failure baseTokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A user calling Collateral's deposit function when baseToken is a non-reverting on failure ERC20 token, can get an arbitrary amount of collateral without actually depositing a single base token in the contract. function depositaddress recipient, uint256...

Unsafe usage of ERC20 methods

Lines of code Vulnerability details There are many weird ERC20 tokens that don't follow the standard ERC20 interface. Depending on the ERC20 token, some transfer errors may result in passing unnoticed, or some successful transfers may be treated as failed. The current implementation assumes that...

Mint might result in too few tokens minted

Lines of code Vulnerability details mint of PrePOMarket.sol allows the team to mint new short and long tokens in exchange for collateral tokens. Long and short tokens are default ERC20 tokens with 18 decimals, while the collateral ERC20 token uses the decimals of the underlying base token. Howeve...

MarketplaceLogic.sol doesn't support ERC20 Tokens with fee on transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details MarketplaceLogic.sol doesn't support ERC20 Tokens with fee on transfer Summary There are ERC20 tokens with transfer at fees. For checking if the transferred amount is the same as expected, code already compares balanceOf before and balanceOf after transfer...

Actor can send an arbitrary token when adding liquidity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call addLiquidity directly and can input tokenId, params and data. The data inputs are never checked, so the user can send anything in there. Since the erc20 tokens routed are defined in the data parameter, user could send any token. Since the...

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...

PirexERC4626 and PirexGmx doesn't support erc20 tokens with fee on transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details PirexERC4626 and PirexGmx doesn't support erc20 tokens with fee on transfer Vulnerability details There are ERC20 tokens that charge fee for every transfer / transferFrom. Different functions assumes assumes that the received amount is the same as the transfer...

Possible double spending issue for PirexERC4626 vault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Solmate's ERC20 does not provide option to increase/decrease allowance, and only option to do so is by setting it via approve - which sets this amount directly. This poses a problem of double spending, when a user want to check current allowance, and bad...

ERC20 return values not checked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact 'token' is a ERC20 from LPToken.sol The ERC20.transfer and ERC20.transferFrom functions return a boolean value indicating success. This parameter needs to be checked for success. Some tokens do not revert if the transfer failed but return false instead...

deposit and withdraw emit the same event than mint and burn in ERC20 and can affect to Dapps

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Deposit and Withdraw emit the same event than burn and mint than ERC20 so it's not possible to distinguish in a DAPP than deposit and withdraw are not mint or burn and could affect to the DAPP logics. For example, cointracking.info could understand in a...

No Revert on Failure, an order can be execute successfully by disguising them as NFTs.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ERC20 tokens don't throw a error when failed in transfer. A malicious user can pretend to be sending an ERC721 token while it is something else. Orders are getting executed inside LooksRareProxy.sol, an attacker as a maker can make an BasicOrder that has...