Update initializer library to prevent reentrancy during initialization

Lines of code Vulnerability details Since proxied contracts do not make use of a constructor, it's common to move constructor logic to an external initializer function, usually called initialize. It then becomes necessary to protect this initializer function so it can only be called once. The...

Downcast can lead to overflow and impact the functionality to remove an asset in NFTFloorOracle

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When adding a new asset, the index for the last asset will be saved and downcasted on L284. If the number of assets is bigger than 256, the downcasting operation will lead to a silent overflow. Consequentially, the incorrect index will be stored. This ca...

Buy can be executed after sale end

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In LPDA.sol buy function when all tokens are minted, the final price is set and the ether from the sale and fee is sent to the saleReceiver and feeReceiver addresses. Since there is no check to validate if sale has ended the function can be executed with...

call() should be used instead of transfer() on an address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact call should be used instead of transfer on an address payable Proof of Concept The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when: 1. The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function...

LAST PRICE DUTCH AUCTION SALE (LPDA) CAN BE EXPLOITED

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function logic of buy in LPDA.sol can be exploited by shrewd buyers to achieve the lowest finalPrice possible. Proof of Concept LPDA.solL58-L89 function buyuint256 amount external payable uint48 amount = uint48amount; Sale memory temp = sale;...

The Ether for an LPDA mint sale can be locked in the LPDA contract indefinitely

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After a mint sale using LPDA, all the Ether can be locked in the LPDA contract indefinitely. Proof of Concept In the src/minters/ contracts, the .transfer function is used for sending Ether. It is used for sending fees to the feeReceiver, and in the...

wrong configuration can lock eth in LPDA contract forever

Lines of code Vulnerability details When creating an LPDA auction there are some sanity checks of the values used for the auction. But there is no check that the auction will not cause the price calculation to underflow after a while. This calculation of the price can underflow in getPrice in...

overflow in buy function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the function doesn't check if the input is more the supply Proof of Concept the function doesn't have any condition check of amount Tools Used manually Recommended Mitigation Steps check the input for maximum or requirement for max supply --- The text wa...

THE FUNCTION LOGIC OF _REMOVEFEEDER() IS FLAWED

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the admin calls removeFeeder, it will internally call removeFeeder that will have the feeder removed from feeders before getting its UPDATEROLE revoked. In the midst of doing this, the protocol forgets to update index of feederPositionMap belonging ...

Actor can input malicious data in the swap function inputs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function swap has a data input parameter, which can be defined by the caller. Any user could therefore define a token address that they will send. By doing so user could create their own token and send it instead of tokenA and receive tokenB for free. By...

Payable functions do not refund excess and locks in

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact All payable functions addCredit, increaseCredit, depositAndClose, depositAndRepay, closehttps://github.com/debtdao/Line-of-Credit/blob/698...

Cross-chain request does not have expiration time

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Cross-chain request does not have expiration time Proof of Concept In the current implementation, a caller in source chain can perform a relayer call to starts a cross-chain request. But it is not clearly when the executor will be executing the...

Incorrect _isAuthorized function logic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The isAuthorized function in the CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract compares the message sender address to the address of the crossDomainMessenger contract, but it should be comparing the xDomainMessageSender value returned by the crossDomainMessenger...

Missing msg.value when executing the cross-chain request

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the cross-chain request will not support smart contract that requires ETH payment in destination chain on execution side. Proof of Concept When a user relayers call and performs a cross-chain request, the executor needs to execute the request in the...

Replay Attack possible by processCalls function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Calls can be processed multiple times Proof of Concept The processCalls function uses the require function to check whether the nonce and calls values have been relayed, but it does not check whether the sender value is the same as the msg.sender value...

Upgraded Q -> M from #205 [1669936745167]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 205 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 - No check if EOARepresentative or EOARepresentativeOfNodeRunner is an EOA or a smart contract Impact A smart contract can end up being assigned as a smartWalletRepresentative. Such smart contract might not have...

Not checking if tokenId exist on distributeFees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Not checking if tokenId exist on distributeFees can set the msg.value to uncreated tokenId Proof of Concept For example an Owner mistakenly call distributeFee with a tokenId which doesn't exist, then the function will success, but unfortunately any user...

tokenID that is not minted will be stored into the feeRecipient storage

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the original code, tokenID is incremented just after mint function is executed. Afterwards, tokenID is stored into the feeRecipient storage. As a result, tokenID that is not minted will be stored into the feeRecipient storage. Proof of Concept In the...

Use Of block.timestamp Can Result In Attacker Manipulating His/Her Rewards In Their Favour

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If an attacker manipulates the block.timestamp in their favor then they can get higher rewards as uint256 rewards = u.rewards + u.lastBalance block.timestamp - u.lastUpdate in this equation lets say the attacker called this just now , and on the next...

Attackers can manipulate ERC4626 price per share to take an unfair share of future users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The attacker can get funds from future users, and the future users will lose their funds. Proof of Concept A malicious early user can deposit with 1 wei of asset token and get 1 wei of shares. Then he/she can send 10000e18 - 1 of asset tokens and inflate...