Bids are wrongly ordered when prices and quantities are equal.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In GroupBuy, when total amount of Raes is filled up with purchases, users start competing with higher price offers. Their bids are laid out in a min priority queue structure implemented in MinPriorityQueue.sol. The docs clearly state that when two...

User can send a proposal and instantly take back their collateral, keeping the proposal active without risking any Raes amount.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In OptimisticListingSeaport.sol, users call propose to set a new proposal. The pendingBalance is updated immediately for the calling proposer: // Sets collateral amount to pending balances for withdrawal pendingBalancesvaultproposedListing.proposer ...

Unlimited minting of fractional tokens by calling Pair.wrap() multiple times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can mint an unlimited amount of fractional tokens and break the protocol by selling the tokens. Proof of Concept NFTs can be traded for 1e18 fractional tokens by calling the function wrap. Wrap calls validateTokenIdstokenIds, proofs which in turn ru...

buyQuote should be rounded up

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buyQuote is not rounded up, which can cause a leak of value, due to the buyQuote being underestimated. Proof of Concept The function Pair.buyQuote does not round up, which can cause the issue described under Impact: function buyQuoteuint256...

Bidding data structure is corrupted, leading to unfair removal from queue.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description processBidsInQueue in GroupBuy handles integrating a new bid into the existing structure. If bumps out lower-paying bids until the new bid is completely fulfilled or the remaining bids are too high. When the lowest paying bid has higher quantity tha...

Protocol's fractional token assumes that each NFT in a collection has the same value

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can cheat the system by wrapping getting fractional tokens a low value NFT and unwrapping a high value NFT selling the same fractional tokens. Pair creator might lose out. Proof of Concept Pair.wrap takes in an array of tokenIds and an array of...

First depositor can break the price of shares

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first depositor of the pool can wreck up the price of the shares for the future depositors mostly as the pair launches because of the rounding. Proof of Concept 1. Bob wraps 1 NFT deposits and received 1e18 denominations of fractionalTokens 2. Bob...

[M-0] Unhandled return values of transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details c4udit Report Issues found M-0 Unhandled return values of transfer Impact Some implementations of transfer could return ‘false’ on failure instead of reverting. Findings: src\Pair.sol::85 = transferFrommsg.sender, addressthis, fractionalTokenAmount;...

User will often overpay when adding liquidity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact One of the assets either baseTokens or fractionalTokens will likely be overpaid when the user calls Pair.add liquidity. Proof of Concept The Pair.add function takes baseTokenAmount, fractionalTokenAmount and minLpTokenAmount as inputs. The first two...

User loses collateral converted to pendingBalance when cash() or list() is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In OptimisticListingOpensea, there are several functions which update pendingBalances of a proposer: 1. list 2. cash 3. propose Unfortunately, in list and cash the = operator is used instead of += when writing the new pendingBalances. For example:...

Attacker can make group pay for tokenID that is not intended.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description purchase in GroupBuy.sol executes the purchase call for the group. There are two possibilities for which tokenIDs can be bought in GroupBuy: 1. If the group is for a specific NFT, the tokenID is the value in pool.merkleRoot variable. 2. If the group...

OptimisticListingSeaport: pendingBalances overwritten instead of increased

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The functions list and cash overwrite the current value instead of increasing it: pendingBalancesvaultactiveListing.proposer = activeListing.collateral; pendingBalancesvaultactiveListing.proposer = collateral; This can be very problematic because the val...

After the redrawing the winner can lose his NFT for the Admin

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner can manipulate the raffle by deprivation of a specific address winner Proof of Concept Please copy the following POC on VRFNFTRandomDraw.t.sol function testadminRedrawingandReclaimnft public address winner = address0x1337; address winner2 =...

Users can bypass the maxWinPercent limit using a partially closing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can bypass the maxWinPercent limit using a partial closing. As a result, users can receive more funds than their upper limit from the protocol. Proof of Concept As we can see from the documentation, there is limitation of a maximum PnL. Maximum PnL...

In case the winner is the address(0)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Temporary freezing NFT this can be more than one period Proof of Concept On VRFNFTRandomDraw.fulfillRandomWords 254 request.currentChosenTokenId = 255 randomWords0 % tokenRange + 256 settings.drawingTokenStartId; In case ownerOfrequest.currentChosenToken...

Use of resignOwnership can lead to stuck NFT in contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Contract OwnableUpgradeable has a resignOwnership function that, if called, can potentially cause the loss of the NFT after a draw has been started. Proof of Concept These are the steps/conditions that make this issue happen: When the owner calls...

Unprotected contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call makeNewDraw and become admin. src/VRFNFTRandomDrawFactory.sol function makeNewDrawIVRFNFTRandomDraw.Settings memory settings external returns address address admin = msg.sender; // Clone the contract address newDrawing =...

Unchecked setters

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Incorrect data: If the 'referred' or 'protocol' variables are set to incorrect values, it could result in incorrect or unexpected behavior in the contract. Manipulation: Malicious actors could potentially exploit this vulnerability to manipulate the syst...

The NFT can be transferred to the owner immediately after startDraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details lastResortTimelockOwnerClaimNFT as the name says is used in case the winning user doesn't retrieve the won NFT token and in such case the owner can rescue the NFT from the contract. The mentioned function can be only called after a certain period is passed: if...

Owners can delay the call to startDraw to reject the draw result

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Owners can call lastResortTimelockOwnerClaimNFT to reclaim NFT back if settings.recoverTimelock block.timestamp // Stop the withdraw revert RECOVERYISNOTYETPOSSIBLE; ... If an owner delays the startDraw until settings.recoverTimelock, the owner can call...