onERC721Received() could delegatecall to transder the tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details onERC721Received could delegatecall to transder the tokens Impact Some onERC721Received could use delegatecall to drain the tokens Putty holds. Because the msg.sender is Putty contract, the tarnsfer can go through. Or taking the ownership of the Putty contract...

[H-02] Owner does not get any fee when call is expired

Lines of code Vulnerability details Owner\creators lose profit by not collecting the fees on half the expired cases all calls. The only place where owner receives fee is when withdrawing an exercised call or expired put: But when a call expired, no fee has been collected on any part of the order...

[H-04] Some fees are locked on contract without ever being able to be collected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The full amount a is transferFrom lender on L215 The amount - fee is invested on L219 and L229. Unlike other lend function, this one is missing crediting the project with the fees they entitled to. As a result, these fees cannot be collected vi...

Yield of LiquidityReserve can be stolen

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Using sandwich attacks and JIT Just-in-time liquidity, the yield of LiquidityReserve could be extracted for liquidity providers. Proof of Concept The yield of LiquidityReserve is distributed when a user calls instantUnstakeReserve in Staking. Then, in...

Fees should be paid by the user when lend() to Swivel

Lines of code Vulnerability details function lend uint8 p, address u, uint256 m, uint256 memory a, address y, Swivel.Order calldata o, Swivel.Components calldata s public unpausedp returns uint256 // lent represents the number of underlying tokens lent uint256 lent; // returned represents the...

instantUnstake function can be frontrunned with fee increase

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact instantUnstake allows user to unstake their stakingToken for a fee paid to the liquidity providers. This fee could be changed up to 100% any moment by admin. Malicious admin could frontrun users instantUnstake transaction and set fee to any value using...

attacker can give a smaller amount of tokens and not pay the fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact an attacker can specify an amount like from 1 wei or more but depends on the state of the contract variables. amount= 1 adminfee=5 / 1000000 = 0 because of persion loss whichfeeAdmin=0 same thing for the other fees and there is no check that they cant be...

InfinityExchange owner can grief with high fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner of the InfinityExchange contract can set any high fee values for PROTOCOLFEEBPS via the InfinityExchange.setProtocolFee function. The fee value should be limited to a maximum of 10000. If set to higher values and due to the usage across functio...

Admin can set arbitrarily high exchange fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Admins can attack users by frontrunning them Poc In the function setProtocolFeeInfinityExchange.sol function setProtocolFeeuint16 protocolFeeBps external onlyOwner PROTOCOLFEEBPS = protocolFeeBps;@audit medium emit NewProtocolFeeprotocolFeeBps; Admins ca...

Wrong implementation of rescueETH, causing the fees in native tokens to be frozen in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details /// @dev used for rescuing exchange fees paid to the contract in ETH function rescueETHaddress destination external payable onlyOwner bool sent, = destination.callvalue: msg.value''; requiresent, 'failed'; Recommendation Change to: /// @dev used for rescuing...

The owner can set arbitrarly high fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner of InfinityExchange contract can set arbitrarly big fees, and coul stole funds from seller. Proof of Concept When an order is executed the payment and the transfer from buyer to seller and viceversa are done by transferNFTsAndFees function wich...

Accumulated ETH fees of InfinityExchange cannot be retrieved

Lines of code Vulnerability details ETH fees accumulated from takeOrders and takeMultipleOneOrders operations are permanently frozen within the contract as there is only one way designed to retrieve them, a rescueETH function, and it will work as intended, not being able to access ETH balance of...

Timelock has a rug vector bypass

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Having a bypass for the timelock defeats the purpose of a timelock. Anyone in the EMERGENCYROLE, or who is able to compromise the key is able to immediately make changes at the expense of users. Proof of Concept executeEmergency can take any action on...

destroy function doesn't check if exitFees is set

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This issue might lead to 0 amountFees Proof of Concept The destroy function does not check if exitFees is set, therefore in a scenario wherein the owner does not set the value of exitFees, its default value would be 0. In line 264 we can see: uint256...

Malicious Owner can steal all user funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Submitting as med risk because it would require malicious multisig, but there should never be absolute trust in any party especially when there's no reason fees would ever need to be that high anyways Impact Owner steals all of user funds Proof of Concept...

Upgraded Q -> H from 25 [1655007954017]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 25 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: Fees should have a boundary of 100% 10000: Otherwise the contract will try to transfer more than possible which will result in reverts: It might also be helpful the have an fixed upper boundary that doesn't allow t...

Upgraded Q -> H from 110 [1655009286368]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 110 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: platformFee should be upper bounded to avoid DoS and excessive fees platformFee can take a value of 10000 100% which could be seen as a trust issue: File: RoyaltyVault.sol 67: function setPlatformFeeuint256...

A malicious zone operator can piggyback other transactions, when a caller tries to fulfill the restricted order

Lines of code Vulnerability details If an order has a restricted order type and, if the caller is other than the offerer or zone, then a staticcall to isValidOrder on the zone is made. This call outside the Seaport contract opens up a possible misuse by the zone contract implementation. The zone...

Deposit doesn't initialize WithdrawalMeta

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Though LiquidityPool.sol is not in scope, this is related to the PoolMigrationZap.migrate which performs deposits into new pools. The deposit functionality of LiquidityPool.sol does not set the withdrawalMeta for the depositor, meaning that their...

Wrong buy_amt_min calculation in RubiconRouter.swapEntireBalance for multi-hop swaps

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buyamountmin value provided for the swap call is calculating too few fees for multi-hop swaps. Every swap within a multi-hop swap is taking fees. Currently, only a one-time fee is calculated on the basis of the swapEntireBalance function parameter...