Incorrect modification authorization amount

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In a specific scenario, the authorized transfer amount from N-M M0, N0 will cause the user to lose M+N money. This solution is to first change the authorized amount to N-0 and then to 0-M. This is not the best solution suggested by the article, and it is...

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...

In VirtualAccount.sol.withdrawERC20(), Transaction revert if the Token does not support 0 value transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In VirtualAccount.sol.withdrawERC20, Transaction revert if the Token does not support 0 value transfer when transferring tokens to recipient address. File: src/ulysses-omnichain/VirtualAccount.sol 31 function withdrawERC20address token, uint256 amount...

Contracts are vulnerable to rebasing accounting-related issues

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Rebasing tokens are tokens that have each holder's balanceof increase over time. Aave aTokens are an example of such tokens. If rebasing tokens are used, rewards accrue to the contract holding the tokens, and cannot be withdrawn by the original depositor...

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...

contract has the tendency to mint more tokens than it actually has

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the contract does not have enough esLBR tokens to mint and transfer as rewards, users will not be able to claim their rewards even if they have earned them. Proof of Concept There is no check to ensure that the contract's balance of esLBR tokens is...

flashloan stealing staking reward

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The report reveals a vulnerability where a flashloan can be used to steal staking rewards. The provided proof of concept demonstrates the issue, where a user can take advantage of the earned rewards calculation using the spot balance. By flashloaning a...

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...

Tokens can be lost when trying to deposit in SDCaollateral.depositSDAsCollateral() or trying to withdraw SDCaollateral.withdraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Some tokens do not return the success of the token submission. Because Since we don’t know for sure how the SD token is implemented, we need to take this into account. Proof of Concept A detailed example is listed in: Tools Used Manual audit Recommended...

There is no check to see if eth was successfully sent from ValidatorWithdrawalVault to StaderStakePoolsManager.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Eth may not complete successfully. As a result, the user will not receive their share from the validator. Tools Used Manual audit Recommended Mitigation Steps Add to StaderStakePoolManager.receiveWithdrawVaultUserShare function. ifmsg.value == 0 revert...

Loss of airdropped Token or NFT in NFT Bridge

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Loss of airdropped Token or NFT in NFT Bridge and Token Bridge Proof of Concept Contract L1ERC721Bridge is for bridging NFTs from L1 to L2 and it holds all the bridged NFTs. Most of the NFT projects would airdrop new NFTs for previous owners or drop ERC2...

If no funds are deposited at the beginning, L1-L2 cannot be transferred out

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If user transfer tokenA-tokenB from L1 to L2, and the L2 depositstokenBtokenA is zero at the beginning.It will cause user lossing his funds. Proof of Concept First, user transfer TokenA, and it will send Message to L2 and L2 will call finalizeBridgeERC20...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #11 [1685422294441]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 11 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03:getReward It is recommended to add balance0 before executing transfer getReward will do a transfer on rewaredsToken Since the rewards are from convex, we can't be sure what kind of token it is. we can't be sure...

Return values of weth.transfer() not checked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Return values of weth.transfer not checked Proof of Concept The function weth.transfer has a boolean return value function transferaddress dst, uint wad public returns bool return transferFrommsg.sender, dst, wad; and they indicate errors that way instea...

Minting exposes beneficiaries to unlimited slippage while minting the token out, sending back the token in the terminal.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The amount of tokens minted/assets received when minting can be manipulated to an unlimited extent by manipulating the reserves of the pool. Proof of Concept Here the mint function mints the tokens out to the beneficiary. However the Delegate can't speci...

Inflation attack by drip

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The drip might inflate the exchange rate on an initial stake such that that subsequent stakers get minted zero wxETH. Their stake can then be unstaked by the first staker, together with their own first stake and inflation investment. Effectively, the fir...

Inflation attack by token transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first staker can inflate the exchange rate by transferring tokens directly to the contract such that subsequent stakers get minted zero wxETH. Their stake can then be unstaked by the first staker, together with their own first stake and inflation...

Contracts are vulnerable to fee-on-transfer-token-related accounting issues

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Impact Without measuring the balance before and after the transfer, there's no way to ensure that enough tokens were transferred, in the cases where the token has a fee-on-transfer mechanic. If there are latent funds in the contract,...

Use the _assetTransferFrom function instead of _assetTransfer. This is because the tokens are held in the escrow contract, rather than being in the destination BYTES address, and thus require a transfer from the escrow contract to the recipient's address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The msg.sender lose his stakedBytes From BYTES address not possible to send stakedBytes to msg.sender. The stakedBytes only help in escrow contract not in BYTES address. Proof of Concept function assetTransfer address asset, address to, uint256 amount...

Loss of funds - User has control of the fallback function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Imapct: Lendengine check the balanceBefore and after of token1, after sending tokens via a mintFallback function. During this fallback the user has access to theses tokens so far as it's returned + collateral the fallback is satisfied. A attacker can take out...