Shares Manipulation DoS Vulnerability in StakedUSDe

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The StakedUSDe contract is vulnerable to manipulation by a malicious actor, leading to a permanent interruption of operations through a Denial-of-Service DoS attack. This vulnerability also impacts StakedUSDeV2 due to its inheritance of the StakedUSDe...

Unprotected payableCall() exposes user funds to malicious actors

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function payableCall is used to make calls on to other contracts from the virtualAccount which is linked to a userAddress. This function utilizes the PayableCall struct show below. struct PayableCall address target; bytes callData; uint256 value; It...

4337-snap (>=0.1.0, <=0.1.1), @0xabcdefg/smart-order-router (>=1.0.0, <=1.0.5) +1553 more potentially affected by CVE-2023-40014 via @openzeppelin/contracts (>=4.0.0, <=4.9.2)

@openzeppelin/contracts NPM version =4.0.0, =0.1.0, =1.0.0, =1.0.0, =3.24.7, =1.7.2, =0.107.10, =1.9.0, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.69.0, =0.107.0, =0.97.1, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.123.2 and more Source cves: CVE-2023-40014 Source advisory: OSV:GHSA-G4VP-M682-QQMP...

Signature Validation Bypass in 'permit' Function of MarketERC20.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The 'MarketERC20.sol' contract contains a critical vulnerability in the 'permit' function, where insufficient signature validation allows for bypassing the authentication process. This loophole enables attackers to manipulate the function by providi...

Avoid using the same ERC-165 interface ID for URDs and their callers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description Contracts that implement the LSP-1 standard include INTERFACEIDLSP1 in their supportsInterface function. This means that they have a universalReceiver function that calls a Universal Receiver Delegate URD, such as LSP1UniversalReceiverDelegateUP...

LSP8 and LSP9's ERC-165 interface ID differs from their specification

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description According to LSP7's specification, the ERC-165 interface ID for LSP7 token contracts should be 0x5fcaac27: ERC165 interface id: 0x5fcaac27 However, INTERFACEIDLSP7 has a different value in the code: LSP7Constants.solL4-L5 // --- ERC165 interface...

LSP8Burnable extension incorrectly inherits LSP8IdentifiableDigitalAssetCore

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description The LSP8Burnable contract inherits from LSP8IdentifiableDigitalAssetCore: LSP8Burnable.solL15 abstract contract LSP8Burnable is LSP8IdentifiableDigitalAssetCore However, LSP8 extensions are supposed to inherit LSP8IdentifiableDigitalAsset instea...

Vault funds can be stolen by a malicious Yield Vault.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a vault is initialized, it sets Max Token Approval for the Yield Vault which allows the Yield Vault to ALWAYS have access to the funds in the vault. Since vaults can be created by anyone as long as they provide an ERC-4626 compliant yield source, an...

LSP8CompatibleERC721's approve() deviates from ERC-721 specification

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description The LSP8CompatibleERC721 contract is a wrapper around LSP8 that is meant to function similarly to ERC-721 tokens. One of its implemented functions is ERC-721's approve: LSP8CompatibleERC721.solL155-L158 function approveaddress operator, uint256...

Malicious Yield Vault could deny Pool Together withdrawing assets

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since vaults can be created by anyone as long as they provide an ERC-4626 compliant yield source, an attacker could set up a malicious ERC-4626 contract and set that as the yield source for a newly created Vault. The attacker could then have the maliciou...

Lack of Access Control in withdrawTokens Function Allows Unauthorized Token Withdrawal

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact withdrawTokens function lacks proper access control, enabling an attacker to exploit it and withdraw tokens from the escrow to an arbitrary address, since no access control check ensures that only the DAO contract can invoke this function, and as a resul...

4337-snap (>=0.1.0, <=0.1.1), @0xabcdefg/smart-order-router (>=1.0.0, <=1.0.5) +1479 more potentially affected by CVE-2023-34234 via @openzeppelin/contracts (>=4.3.0, <=4.9.0)

@openzeppelin/contracts NPM version =4.3.0, =0.1.0, =1.0.0, =1.0.0, =3.24.7, =1.7.2, =0.107.10, =1.9.0, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.69.0, =0.107.0, =0.97.1, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.123.2 and more Source cves: CVE-2023-34234 Source advisory: OSV:GHSA-5H3X-9WVQ-W4M2...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #308 [1685704892606]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 308 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-04 MINNONZEROTOTALSHARES of 1e9 could lead to stuck funds for underlying tokens with lower decimals in the future StrategyBase.solL28 uint96 internal constant MINNONZEROTOTALSHARES = 1e9; In the future, to support...

Function trigering

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. The redeemPayment funtion does not check if the payment token being transferred to the delegation terms contract is approved by the sender. This can allow an attacker to call this function and transfer...

4337-snap (>=0.1.0, <=0.1.1), @0xabcdefg/smart-order-router (>=1.0.0, <=1.0.5) +1447 more potentially affected by CVE-2023-30542 via @openzeppelin/contracts (>=4.3.0, <=4.8.2)

@openzeppelin/contracts NPM version =4.3.0, =0.1.0, =1.0.0, =1.0.0, =3.24.7, =1.7.2, =0.107.10, =1.9.0, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.69.0, =0.107.0, =0.97.1, =0.107.0, =0.107.0, =0.123.2 and more Source cves: CVE-2023-30542 Source advisory: OSV:GHSA-93HQ-5WGC-JC82...

Routing griefing via ERC-777 operator

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Currently, there is no router implemented for private pools in which NFTs are traded against ERC-20 tokens or it is not available in the repository. However, in the future, it is possible that some algorithm on the frontend will look for the optimal path...

Use safeTransferFrom() instead of transferFrom() in function NeoTokyoStaker._assetTransferFrom()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Some ERC-20 tokens do not revert on failure such as ZRX. Instead, they would just return a boolean false. In function NeoTokyoStaker.assetTransferFrom, the check success is only checking whether the low-level call is successful or not. If the ERC-20 toke...

implementation of the isValidSignature() function in the DAO.sol is invalid

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Failure to validate the returned response from the isValidSignature function can cause that invalid signatures to be assumed to be valid. Proof of Concept Currently, externally owned accounts EOAs can sign messages with their associated private keys, but...

Re-entrancy in MultiRewardStaking.claimRewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If an ERC-777 token is used as reward token for any Staking contract in the system, that reward token can be completely drained from the Staking contract. Proof of Concept Re-entrancy can be done in the MultiRewardStaking.claimRewards function because of...

claimRewards is not re-entrancy safe.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In MultiRewardStaking the function claimRewards doesn’t have nonReentrant which makes it possible to re-enter the function. If one of the reward tokens in ERC-777 token, it is possible to re-enter and claim the reward again and again until the contract i...