_handleExecuteTransaction may not working correctly on fee-on-transfer tokens. Moreover, if it is failed, fund may be locked forever.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact handleExecuteTransaction may not working correctly on fee-on-transfer tokens. As duplicated fee is applied to fee on transfer token when executing a arbitrary call message passing request. Moreover, the Executor contract increase allowance on that token...

Did Not Approve To Zero First Causing Certain Token Transfer To Fail

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof-of-Concept Some tokens like USDT do not work when changing the allowance from an existing non-zero allowance value. For example Tether USDT's approve function will revert if the current approval is not zero, to protect against front-running changes of...

rescueETH function doesn't works as expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The rescueETH function is implemented to collect any unexpected ETH transferred to the infinityExchange.sol contract, But this function will not work as expected. The function is supposed to return the eth from the contract to the specified destination...

function removeRouter() in RouterFacet don't check that router has balance and don't transfer it, it just set router owner and recipient to 0x0 which can cause make router balance in danger or unavailable for router owner

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are some security levels for router, like setting owner and recipient and when removeRouter is called this values set to 0x0 and router address become vulnerable. contract should transfer router balance to recipient before removing it. Proof of...

Malicious Relayer Can Replay Execute Calldata On Different Chains Causing Double-Spend Issue

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof-of-Concept This issue is only applicable for fast-transfer. Slow transfer would not have this issue because of the built-in fraud-proof mechanism in Nomad. First, the attacker will attempt to use Connext to send 1000 USDC from Ethereum domain to Optimism...

Incorrect calculation of startGasPerOrder will cause fund loss to the buyer of the last order due to mischarged gas cost

Lines of code Vulnerability details uint256 gasCost = startGasPerOrder - gasleft + wethTransferGasUnits tx.gasprice; When the orders are matched by the MATCHEXECUTOR, the gas cost of each order is paid by the buyer in WETH, the amount gasCost is calculated based on startGasPerOrder, gasleft and...

Admin can set arbitrarily high WETH_TRANSFER_GAS_UNITS which is a fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can lose their fund by attack from the admins Poc In the function updateWethTranferGasInfinityExchange.sol there is no limit for setting WETHTRANSFERGASUNITS . As this is a kind of fee paid by from the buyers to the contract By definition of the...

Current implementation of arbitrary call execute failure handler may break some use case for example NFT bridge.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Current implementation of arbitrary call execute failure handler may break some use case for example NFT Bridge. In the case of NFT Bridge, NFT may be lost forever. This is likely to be happened in the case of out of gas. Proof of Concept Relayer receive...

Should also check balanceOfRewards in _withdrawAll()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact withdrawAll should check that all of your positions are unwinded. It does check balanceOfPool and LOCKER.balanceOf. Then withdrawToVault in BaseStrategy.sol can transfer all want to the vault. But it doesn’t check reward tokens. want could also be one of...

Fee-on-transfer support

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Every time transferFrom or transfer function in ERC20 standard is called there is a possibility that underlying smart contract did not transfer the exact amount entered. It is required to find out contract balance increase/decrease after the transfer to...

_processExtraToken() in _sendBadgerToTree() will transfer BADGER again

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact sendBadgerToTree sends amount BADGER to BADGERTREE. However processExtraToken in sendBadgerToTree also sends amount BADGER to the vault. it sends amount BADGER twice. It could result in revert if it doesn't have enough balance of BADGER. Proof of Concept...

Badger rewards from Hidden Hand can permanently prevent Strategy from receiving bribes

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the contract receives rewards from the hidden hand marketplace in BADGER then the contract tries to transfer the same amount of tokens twice to two different accounts, once with sendBadgerToTree in MyStrategy and again with processExtraToken in the...

BADGER bribes can not be claimed

Lines of code Vulnerability details sendBadgerToTree will send BADGER twice and therefore fail. It is sending it to the BADGERTREE in sendBadgerToTree, and then continues to send the same amount to the vault in processExtraToken. Impact BADGER rewards cannot be claimed. The contract is trying to...

Upgraded Q -> M from 153 [1655579808802]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 153 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L03 Callvalue:amt"" should be used instead of send In ForgottenRunesWarriorsGuild.withdrawAll. transfer and send should be avoided because they take a hard dependency on gas costs by forwarding a fixed amount of...

Upgraded Q -> M from 91 [1655579814367]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 91 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: use call instead of send affected code: Use of transfer might render ETH impossible to withdraw because after istanbul hardfork , there is increases in the gas cost of the SLOAD operation and therefore breaks som...

Upgraded Q -> M from 117 [1655579798819]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 117 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: Don't use send / transfer to send ETH This is low severity but you should avoid these and use call --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from 135 [1655579793739]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 135 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L send is not recommended for sending native token Since the introduction of transfer, it has typically been recommended by the security community because it helps guard against reentrancy attacks. This guidance...

Upgraded Q -> M from 47 [1655572104366]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 47 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 1. Unsafe use of transfer/transferFrom with IERC20 Some tokens do not implement the ERC20 standard properly but are still accepted by most code that accepts ERC20 tokens. For example Tether USDT's transfer and...

Fee-on-transfer support

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Every time transferFrom or transfer function in ERC20 standard is called there is a possibility that underlying smart contract did not transfer the exact amount entered. It is required to find out contract balance increase/de...

Should it transfer underSpentAmount to _msgSender() instead of reserve?

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact underSpentAmount is dust amount, if being transferred to reserve without any state modification. These tokens might be lost. Normally, dust amount must transfer back to only msgSender as a best practice. Proof of Concept unchecked uint256 underSpentAmoun...