LP owner cannot control slippage while managing their position

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The owner of the LP cannot specify the slippage parameters while interacting with this position in increaseLiquidity and decreaseLiquidity. Impact Liquidity interaction with Uniswap is protected by minimum amount parameters that control the slippage of...

Increase liquidity in close position may not cover original borrowed liquidity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary When a position is closed, there is no check to ensure that the effective added liquidity covers the original borrowed liquidity from the LP. Impact Closing a position in the Particle LAMM protocol must ensure that the borrowed liquidity gets fully adde...

Users may be unable to claim their rewards and add/remove liquidity due exceeding gas limit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a user provides liquidity on ticks which are entered and exited a large number of times, the gas required to call the accrueConcentratedPositionTimeWeightedLiquidity can exceed the block gas limit. Proof of Concept The...

getActiveTickIndex implementation error

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The implementation of getActiveTickIndex is wrong, and the searched ticks do not meet expectations, causing funds to be incorrectly allocated to edge ticks, and there is basically no staking income. Proof of Concept // if base token is token0, ticks abov...

Liquidity cannot be removed by an approved address via Router

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Using the Router, liquidity can only be removed by the owner of an NFT, which significantly limits liquidity management. The Pool contract, however, does allow approved addresses to remove liquidity. Proof of Concept The Router contract is a higher level...