When user of GroupBuy is a contract, refunds will be permanently frozen.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description claim function is used in GroupBuy to mint Raes proportional to user's contribution to the purchased NFT. withdrawBalance is used to get back funds which are not part of the contribution. They both contain an unsafe call with ETH. For example:...

Pair.sol contract is susceptible to having its pricing curve (x*y = k) manipulated through a 3rd party contract calling selfdestruct() and forwarding ether.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a pair is denominated in ether, a third party contract can forward ether to the contract using the selfdestruct function passing the pair's address. The impact of this is that the pair will allow its market making curve to be manipulated. Among other...

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...

PT-2022-28072 · Gossipsub · Gossipsub

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions: GossipSub version 1.1 Description: The issue allows a peer to maintain a positive score and remain in the network despite continuously misbehaving by not forwarding topic messages. This affects GossipSub 1.1 as used for Ethereum 2.0...

CVE-2022-47547

GossipSub 1.1 (used in Ethereum 2.0) contains a vulnerability where a peer can continuously misbehave by not forwarding topic messages, yet maintain a positive score and avoid pruning. Root cause appears to be the peer scoring/penalty mechanism allowing misbehaving peers to stay in the network. D...

CVE-2022-47547

GossipSub 1.1, as used for Ethereum 2.0, allows a peer to maintain a positive score and thus not be pruned from the network even though it continuously misbehaves by never forwarding topic messages...

Pair.sol : baseTokenReserves() can be manipulatable if the base token is native token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Price manipulation in following functions wherever the baseTokenReserves; is called. buyQuote, sellQuote, addQuote, removeQuote Proof of Concept function baseTokenReserves internal view returns uint256 return baseToken == address0 ? addressthis.balance -...

CVE-2022-47547

GossipSub 1.1, as used for Ethereum 2.0, allows a peer to maintain a positive score and thus not be pruned from the network even though it continuously misbehaves by never forwarding topic messages...

[NAZ-M2] Usage of send() Can Result In Revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Several functions are sendusing is used by the across several functions to transfer ETH/WETH. send uses a fixed amount of gas, which was used to prevent reentrancy. However this limit your protocol to interact with others contracts that need more than th...

user can loose ETH when using Router::multicall

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When using Router multicall function user must not forgot to append to the multicall data array calls for unwrapWETH9 or refundETH. If the user forgets to do this a MEV bot can see the missed tokens and take them out because anyone can call the mentioned...

Sale contracts use address.transfer method

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The FixedPrice, LPDA & OpenEdition contracts uses payableaddress.transfer method to send ETH which is unsafe. EIP1884 increases the gas cost certain opcodes, possibly making contracts go over the 2300 gas limit by transfer, making them unable to receive...

MintableIncentivizedERC721 and NToken do not comply with ERC721, breaking composability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description MintableIncentivizedERC721 implements supportsInterface as below: / @dev See IERC165-supportsInterface. / function supportsInterfacebytes4 interfaceId external view virtual overrideIERC165 returns bool return interfaceId ==...

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...

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...

Incorrect behavior in CrossChainExecutorPolygon contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description: We have discovered an issue with the CrossChainExecutorPolygon contract. When a message with a nonce that has already been executed is received, the contract does not prevent the message from being processed or display an error message. This issue...

Funds may be lost if processCalls is called from a contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In CrossChainRelayerArbitrum.processCalls, msg.sender is set as the address to receive any refund both excess fee refund and call value refund in the createRetryableTicket call. Arbitrium credits the refunded value to L2 balance, so if the user doesn't...

Upgraded Q -> M from #400 [1670236078897]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 400 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L03 - LiquidStakingManager.dao can rug node operators with executeAsSmartWallet 202: function executeAsSmartWallet 203: address nodeRunner, 204: address to, 205: bytes calldata data, 206: uint256 value 207: external...

Fail to verify the result of a low level function call

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. It fails to check properly if the call is successful because: 1 It does not check the return data; 2 it does not check if the target address is a valid contract. A contract that has no code will still...

Upgraded Q -> M from #373 [1670018401792]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 373 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: N2. ETH not accumulated in previewAccumulatedETH supposed to have accumulated += ... Although it is an external view function, depending on its usages, it may present more issues to the callers. --- The text was...

Relayed calls in EthereumToArbitrumRelayer can be replayed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A relayed call can be processed multiple times allowing somebody to execute the user's call multiple times. The bridge allows arbitrary calls to contracts. Depending on the nature of the call, this could result in a loss of funds for the user. Proof of...