NFTs mintable after Auction deadline expires

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buy function on the LPDA.sol contract is not validating if the auction is still running, allowing a purchase to be made after the stipulated time. The endtime variable used to store the end date of the auction is not used at any point to validate...

double user token spending in function executeBuyWithCredit() contract transfer user wETH fund for wETH orders even when user send payment as ETH to contract and contract converted it to wETH (_depositETH() and _delegateToPool() takes user funds when user sends ETH and tries to buy WETH order)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when user wants to buy NFT tokens with wETH asset, and he/she sent ETH to executeBuyWithCredit or executeBatchBuyWithCredit, code would take user tokens two times, one as ETH token in depositETH and one as wETH tokens in delegateToPool so users would pay...

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...

Implementing Security Restrictions and Owner Access Controls on LPDA Smart Contract.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Impact The new changes to the contract add an additional layer of security and restrict access to certain privileged functions. The buy function now requires that only the owner can purchase tokens, which prevents malicious actors from...

Malicious feeReceiver or saleReceiver can steal the user's refund ETH by calling the buy function multiple times in LPDA

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LPDA contract, the fee is transfered to feeReceiver and the totalSale to saleReceiver when newId == temp.finalId, meaning that the amount of tokens that were minted has been reached. However, the call to the internal end function only emits an eve...

Upgraded Q -> M from #35 [1670345543949]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 35 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: No. 2 Any smart contract that uses transfer or send is taking a hard dependency on gas costs by forwarding a fixed amount of gas: 2300. If gas costs are subject to change, then smart contracts can’t depend on any...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from #400 [1670235895275]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 400 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 - EOA restriction of wallet representative can be bypassed A node operator can call registerBLSPublicKeys to register a node runner to LSD and create a new smart wallet. The protocol only allows EOAs to be...

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...

Existing tokens can be given to other contracts when assign function is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the Turnstile contract when the assign function is called any unregistered contract can register himself as the feeRecipient for any given token id, but in reality only the token owner should be able to assign a new smart contract as feeRecipient for...

MINTING OF NFT AT WILL

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact register is an unrestricted public function where any new msg.sender is going to get through the modifier onlyUnregistered. With a non-zero recipient argument passed into the function, a new NFT is going to be minted to the recipient. Consequently, an...

isContract might return false for the contracts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Turnstile contract's register function assumes the msg.sender is a smart contract. The validation of this is carried out in eventhandler.go's ValidateContract function. ValidateContract checks whether the address has an emptyCodeHash which is zero...

Ownership NFT Can be Minted by Anyone

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Turnstile.sol, register is a public function callable by anyone. Any msg.sender calling this function the first time is going to bypass the modifier onlyUnregistered. As long as a non-zero recipient has been inputted, a new NFT is going to be minted t...

lack of unregiestered function existen

Lines of code Vulnerability details there is no function to let a smart contract to unregester from a tokenid , since a smart contract can only be regestered once its highly recommended to give it an ability to unregister from a tokenid and register again bob calls register bob has two...

A malicious user can steal all the excess balance on the pool by calling the execute function with higher amount than the selling amount

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When an order is matched, the Buyer has the option to pay in either ETH, WETH or via the Pool contract. The Exchange smart contract implements a function returnDust which returns the extra ETH to the user, if she overpays. The function is implemented in...

Susceptible to reorg attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When reorg happens, it is possible that the cancelled order by the taker be executed by the maker. Proof of Concept Suppose userA is seller and userB is buyer, seller is maker, and buyer is taker. After some time, userB the buyer cancels the order by...

_returnDust does not revert ether transfer failure

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In function returnDust the return value of call is not checked for success. If a user had sent excess ether or if an order in a bulk order had failed, and if the call fails ether will remain in the contract. Users who execute orders later will be able to...

Broken Upgradable Logic in Pool.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Pool smart contract allows a user to predeposit ETH so that it can be used when a seller takes their bid. It uses an ERC1967 proxy pattern and only the exchange contract is permitted to make transfers. The smart contract inherits the...

Theft of ETH that was not used for the successful execution of orders

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description There are execute and bulkExecute functions in Exchange smart contract. There is the refund of any ETH that was unused for example that was left due to the unsuccessful order execution at the end of its execution flow: returnDust; returnDust functio...

Reentrancy attack on fee transferring

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Description There is execute function in the Exchange smart contract. The function matches two orders, ensuring the validity of the match, transfers the order fees, etc. When transferring fees, the contract just makes a call to the...