Reentrancy Vulnerability: The contract inherits from the ReentrancyGuard contract, which smay be vulnerable to reentrancy attacks if not properly handled in the contract's logic.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The impact of the reentrancy vulnerability in the incrementGaugeWeight function can be summarized as follows: Loss of Funds: Attackers can drain funds from the contract or manipulate balances. Unexpected State Changes: Manipulation of variables can lead ...

No target price check performed for external oracles

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact readMint and readBurn do not check the price of returned assets against the target price, this check is only performed for Chainlink Oracles. Therefore, external oracles can report an arbitrarily price that will be accepted by the protocol and any oracle...

Reward clarinets can claim rewards multiple times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reward claimers can call the get accrued reward function multiple times and maybe even drain the contract Proof of Concept As we can see there’s no check setting the accrued reward to zero after the rewards have been transferred Tools Used Manual review...

Functions don't update after being called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Without updating the reserve or vault value of tokens after calling different functions, the contract may be prone to inconsistent state, security issues, financial implications, and bad user experience. It is important to review and update the reserve...

Reactivated gauges have incorrect accounting for the last cycle’s rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact reactivated gauges that previously had queued up rewards have a mismatch between their storedCycle and contract’s gaugeCycle state variable. Due to this mismatch, there is also a resulting issue with the accounting logic for its completed rewards: Proof ...

Potential Loss of Funds Due to Zero Slippage Hardcoding in TalosBaseStrategy#deposit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the deposit function within the TalosBaseStrategy contract, both slippage for two tokens amount0Min and amount1Min are hardcoded to zero. This can have severe implications as users may unintentionally accept a minimum of zero output tokens from a swap...

If a STRATEGY TOKEN is "Toggled off" STRATEGIES will still be able to withdraw but returning of tokens with replenishReserves will be disabled.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact BranchPort.manage allows a registered Strategy to withdraw certain amounts of enabled strategy tokens. It validates access rights ie. if called by a strategy registered for the requested token. It however doesn't check if the token itself is currently...

BranchBridgeAgent invokes anyCall with PAY ON SOURCE but doesn't send value with it. All calls will fail.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact IAnycallProxy.anyCall operates under one of two modes of taking fees, namely fees are taken either on source or on the destination chain. Fee mode is decided by the caller with an appropriate value of the fourth parameter, ie. uint256 flag . Values 0,4...

Incorrect Use of Equality Operator in addPartner and addVault Functions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The addPartner and addVault functions in the PartnerManagerFactory contract are intended to add new partner managers and vaults respectively. These functions also assign a unique ID to each new partner manager and vault by storing them in the partnerIds...

Liquidity providers may lose funds when initialising a strategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Liquidity providers may lose funds when initialising a strategy Vulnerability Detail Liquidity providers may lose a portion of provided liquidity in either of the pair tokens when creating a new position. The init function on TalosBaseStrategy.sol does...

_voteSucceeded and proposals give opposite result

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LybraGovernance contract, the voteSucceeded function returns true if supportVotes1 supportVotes0. At the same time in the proposals function supportVotes0 is returned as forVotes and supportVotes1 is returned as againstVotes. This could suggest,...

proposals view function returns wrong voting results

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Even though, the votes are calculated correctly, the proposals view function returns wrong voting results returning forVotes results as againstVotes amount. This would negatively impact the users...

Potential Unauthorized Flash Loan Execution and Share Burning due to Lack of Permission Checks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The executeFlashloan function in the provided contract allows any user to execute a flash loan on behalf of another user without explicit permission. This could potentially lead to an unauthorized execution of flash loans and unexpected share burnings if...

Getting exchange rate function is wrong

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Unmatched function for getting the exchange rate can lead to being unable to mint PeUSD when depositing ETH into Rocket Pool. Proof of Concept The interface used in LybraRETHVault.sol for getting the exchange rate does not match the target contract RETH...

distributeRewards can revert because of the too strict slippage check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The report highlights that the distributeRewards function can revert due to a strict slippage check. The provided proof of concept demonstrates the issue, where the slippage is set to 98%, leading to potential transaction failures. Proof of Concept...

Voting period hardcoded to 3 blocks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Here in the Governance contract, the voting period is locked to 3 blocks. function votingPeriod public pure override returns uint256 return 3; function votingDelay public pure override returns uint256 return 1; This is a direct bug because if we take a...

AutoSwapThreshold field is not checked for exceeding MaxAutoSwapThreshold constant

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact validateAutoSwapThreshold function has a problem that does not check the AutoSwapThreshold field is less than or equal to the MaxAutoSwapThreshold constant, this can caused that a malicious user could set the AutoSwapThreshold field to a value that is...

An error could lead to coins not being returned to user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function swapCoins does check that SendCoins does receive them correctly here but not when sending them to the user here Proof of Concept If there is an error returning the swapped coins to the user, they will remain locked. There is no history of...

Pre-defined limit is different from the spec.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the spec, the pre-defined limit of ETH is 0.01 ETHs. But the actual limit in the code is not 0.01 ETH which could result in misleading. Proof of Concept In the spec, it said that the pre-defined limit of ETH is 0.01 ETHs For risk management purposes, ...

Add check to disallow creation of Standard Denomination pool

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact CreatePool does not check if the counterpartyDenom is a Standard Denomination. This can lead to creation of pools where the StandardDenom and the CounterpartyDenom are the same. Code reference // CreatePool create a liquidity that saves relevant...