Yieldy._totalSupply has different upper bounds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Yieldy.totalSupply has different upper bounds. Yieldy.mint will revert when totalSupply is exactly same as MAXSUPPLY. Proof of Concept From L91-L98, we can see totalSupply can be same as MAXSUPPLY and I think "totalSupply = MAXSUPPLY" is reasonable also...

Inaccurate fee calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The equation in the calculateFee function has a high degree of inaccuracy Solidity use integers, when divide an uint256 for other uint256 the divition take the floor number and ignore the decimal part In example: a = 1999 ETH feenominator = 1000 the retu...

Staking.setCurvePool() doesn't approve allowance when changes CURVE_POOL.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Staking.setCurvePool doesn't approve allowance when changes CURVEPOOL. It will affect when users exchange asset through CURVEPOOL. Proof of Concept When initialize the contract, Staking contract approves CURVEPOOL here. But when admin updates CURVEPOOL...

CVE-2022-33069

Ethereum Solidity v0.8.14 contains an assertion failure via SMTEncoder::indexOrMemberAssignment at SMTEncoder.cpp...

CVE-2022-33069

Ethereum Solidity v0.8.14 contains an assertion failure via SMTEncoder::indexOrMemberAssignment at SMTEncoder.cpp...

CVE-2022-33069

Ethereum Solidity v0.8.14 contains an assertion failure via SMTEncoder::indexOrMemberAssignment at SMTEncoder.cpp...

Authentication flaw

Ethereum Solidity v0.8.14 contains an assertion failure via SMTEncoder::indexOrMemberAssignment at SMTEncoder.cpp...

Solidity 安全漏洞

Solidity is a high-level programming language. A security vulnerability exists in Ethereum Solidity version v0.8.14, which originates from running an example via solc and triggering an internal compiler error...

CVE-2022-33069

CVE-2022-33069 pertains to Ethereum Solidity v0.8.14, where an assertion failure occurs in SMTEncoder::indexOrMemberAssignment() (SMTEncoder.cpp). This description is consistently stated across sources and is the core concrete detail: the vulnerability arises from an assertion failure in the SMT ...

CVE-2022-33069

Ethereum Solidity v0.8.14 contains an assertion failure via SMTEncoder::indexOrMemberAssignment at SMTEncoder.cpp...

WETH.totalSupply() returns wrong result.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact WETH.totalSupply returns wrong result. I can't find other contracts that use this function but WETH.sol is a base contract and it should be fixed properly. Proof of Concept WETH.balanceOf just returns a balance of a specific address and totalSupply must ...

WETH.allowance() returns wrong result.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact WETH.allowance returns wrong result. I can't find other contracts that use this function but WETH.sol is a base contract and it should be fixed properly. Proof of Concept In this function, the "return" keyword is missing and it will always output 0 in th...

cause an attacker to get a better deal on intrest rate on borrwoing and lending or cause txs' to revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if the variable maturity in getMaturity function is a big number that gets put into uint40 and since its to big of a number it will revert because solidity ^0.8.0 dosn't allow overflow and on deployment hasMatured can be true because it very close to the...

Upgraded Q -> M from 104 [1654443194486]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 104 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: transfer return value of a general ERC20 is ignored Need to use safeTransfer instead of transfer. As there are popular tokens, such as USDT that transfer/trasnferFrom method doesn’t return anything. The transfer...

StakerVault.unstake(), StakerVault.unstakeFor() would revert with a uint underflow error of StakerVault.strategiesTotalStaked, StakerVault._poolTotalStaked.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact StakerVault.unstake, StakerVault.unstakeFor would revert with a uint underflow error of StakerVault.strategiesTotalStaked, StakerVault.poolTotalStaked. Proof of Concept Currently it saves totalStaked for strategies and non-strategies separately. uint...

A malicious filler can fill a partial order in such a way that the rest cannot be filled by anyone

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact For filling a partial order, because Seaport accepts any representation of a fraction, a malicious filler can provide a giant fraction unreduced. This would severely limit what orders can be filled afterwards and in some cases making any more fills...

Fulfilling an order more than once

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any non basic or FULL order can be fulfilled more than once, assuming the offerer has approved the contract the right amounts. This is a valid assumption as users may max-approve the contract/conduits, or have multiple orders with the same items open so...

RewardHandler.burnFees() will work only once and revert after that if burnedAmount is different.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact RewardHandler.burnFees will work only once and revert after that if burnedAmount is different. Proof of Concept OpenZeppelin’s safeApprove will revert if the account already is approved and the new safeApprove is done with a non-zero value. Tools Used...

totalSupply will revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The line for uint256 i = epochindex - 1; i + 1 != 0; i-- relies on uint256 underflow and overflow, which would revert in solidity ^0.8.0 Proof of Concept function totalSupply external view returns uint256 supply uint256 currentEpoch =...

Logic error in inversely traversed loops could lead to DoS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Potential DoS in loops being inversely traversed Proof of Concept Let's take the example of VE3DLocker.totalSupply. The VE3DLocker.totalSupply function has been modified to save gas with an inversely traversed for-loop: File: VE3DLocker.sol 386: //traver...