Use safetransfer/safetransferFrom instead of transfer/transferFrom in ERC20

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Its a good to checks the return value of token transfer using safetransfer or safetransferFrom on Openzeppelin to ensure the token revert when transfer failure. Failure to do so will cause silent failures of transfer and affect token accountng in contrac...

The protocol doesn't support fee-on transfer ERC20 tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The withdraw function in VTVLVesting.sol contract, doesn't handle cases where the tokenAddress is a fee-on transfer ERC20 token. There are ERC20 tokens that may make certain customisations to their ERC20 contracts. One type of these tokens is deflationar...

Rebasing tokens can ruin the claiming

Lines of code Vulnerability details Rebasing tokens has the ability to use all the funds before all the recipients fulfilled their vestings. This can happen as the system records balance in nominals terms, while it can be rebased thereafter, which will create a discrepancy with system's accountin...

VariableSupplyERC20Token cannot be deployed due to wrong access control

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact VariableSupplyERC20Token contract cannot be deployed resulting in not functioning contract. Proof of Concept mint function is called in the constructor of VariableSupplyERC20Token contract. constructorstring memory name, string memory symbol, uint256...

Arbitrary contract call allows attacker to steal from user's wallet

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In function prepareGate , in the following line : bool s, bytes memory r = addressgateKeeper.callcreateGateCallData; A call to an arbitrary contractgateKeeper with custom calldata createGateCallData is made in prepareGate, which means the contract...

[NAZ-M3] Use safeTransfer()/safeTransferFrom() instead of transfer()/transferFrom()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is a good idea to add a require statement that checks the return value of ERC20 token transfers or to use something like OpenZeppelin’s safeTransfer/safeTransferFrom unless one is sure the given token reverts in case of a failure. Failure to do so wil...

Return value of transferFrom() does not check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Return value of transferFrom inside deposit function does not checked: function deposituint256 id, uint256 assets, address receiver public override marketExistsid epochHasNotStartedid nonReentrant returns uint256 shares // Check for rounding error since ...

Vault does not verify that tokens were transferred successfully.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If for some reason the ERC20 transfer is temporarily failing, the user could call deposit for free or if calling withdraw the user would totally lose his allocation and funds. All the state variables would already have been updated at this stage, so he...

Fee = 0 in case supply is less then 10

Lines of code Vulnerability details In case supply is less then 10 fee will be always = 0, which is almost impossible with ETH but it's not 100% excludible with an ERC20 token in case it's value is very high and precision is low . A check that supply shall more then 10 shall be set. --- The text...

ERC20.sol is susceptible to classic ERC20 approve functionality front-running exploit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of concept The problem is perfectly described here The tldr; is that if you approved a person to spend 100 tokens and then you want to decrease his allowance to 50, if he spends his 100 tokens allowance before you set his allowance to 50 he will be able t...

Missing Transfer Verification

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The ERC20 standard token implementation functions return the transaction status as a boolean. It is a good practice to check for the return status of the function call to ensure that the transaction was executed successfully. It is the developer's...

Malicious party active member can approve malicious contract to spend and steal party ERC1155 nft and ERC20 tokens via arbitrary proposal execution

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Let's look into the implementation in ArbitraryCallsProposal.sol // Check that the call is not prohibited. if !isCallAllowedcall, isUnanimous, preciousTokens, preciousTokenIds revert...

TribeRedeemer.redeem() might revert for revert-on-zero-value-transfers tokens.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact TribeRedeemer.redeem might revert for revert-on-zero-value-transfers tokens. Currently, it doesn't check when the transfer amount is zero and it might revert for some weird tokens. Proof of Concept As we can see here, some ERC20 tokens don't allow to...

redeem() doesn't support inflationary or deflationary erc20 tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A transfer-on-fee token or a deflationary/rebasing token, causes the received amount to be less than the accounted amount. For instance, a deflationary tokens might charge a certain fee for every transfer or transferFrom. TribeRedeemer.sol supports the u...

Tokens with fee on transfer are not supported

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are ERC20 tokens that charge fee for every transfer or transferFrom. If this tokens are unsupported, ensure there is proper documentation about it. Proof of Concept 6 instances in 2 files: contracts/shutdown/fuse/RariMerkleRedeemer.sol...

Should add check for Insufficient allowance

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is not check for Insufficient allowance inside transferFrom method. Proof of Concept Tools Used Code analytics Recommended Mitigation Steps requirecurrentAllowance = amount, "ERC20: insufficient allowance"; --- The text was updated successfully, bu...

Controlling the ERC20 Token contract from symbol is not secure

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact BaseV1-periphery.solL491 in the getUnderlyingPrice function , the correctness of the CToken contract received from the instance is done with if compareStringssymbol, "cCANTO" on line BaseV1-periphery.solL490 This is not a safe way, fake contracts similar...

Miscalculation for cUSDT and cUSDC

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact getUnderlyingPrice stated that it would return the underlying price of the assets as a mantissa scaled by 1e18. However, the arithmetic setup on lines 503 and 507 could result in answers not scaled by 1e18. Proof of Concept 1e18 1e18 / 10 decimals is...

transferFrom() failure in _safeTransferFrom() could drain the pair

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact For some tokens, tokenCon.transferFrom could fail and return false but not revert. Some malicious user can abuse it the addLiquidity/addLiquidityCANTO function to perform failure transferFrom but still get the liquidity, and later remove liquidity to dra...

TRSRY.sol is susceptible to ERC20 approve functionality front-running exploit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of concept The problem is perfectly described here The tldr; is that if you approved a person to spend 100 tokens and then you want to decrease his allowance to 50, if he spends his 100 tokens allowance before you set his allowance to 50 he will be able t...