Wrong tick selected by GeVault.getActiveTickIndex()

Lines of code Vulnerability details During mitigation of M-03, the function getActiveTickIndex has been completely rewritten. The new logic uses the following statement to identify the active ticker that represents the Uniswap V3 liquidity pool actively traded: if baseTokenIsToken0 && amt0 == 0 |...

A difference in the rDPX price between the oracle and DEXs used for trading can cause more slippage than expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol will experience much higher slippage than supposed to due to using the wrong price in calculating the amount after slippage. Proof of Concept The protocol executes swaps on Uniswap and Curve. The issue arises due to the protocol using its ow...

Lack of minAmount when adding liquidity into Uniswap V2 can lead to the LP getting MEVd

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The amount being LPd into Uniswap can get stolen trough MEV. Proof of Concept The reLP contract re-LPs a certain amount of the tokens, that enter after a bond gets bought. The issue arises due to there not being proper minimum liquidity amounts passed wh...

Missed approving to UniswapV2Router

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract should have already granted an allowance of at least minamountOfWeth for the input token. This step is missing during the UniswapV2Router call within the lowerDepeg function. // @audit msg.sender should have already given the router an...

RDPX price manipulation benefit for attacker via a Flashloan attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As the RdpxV2Core contract burns RDPX tokens, a malicious attacker can benefit from a price manipulation attack using a flashloan attack Proof of Concept The function bond in the RdpxV2Core contract is a primary function to enter the protocol and bond...

Attacker can DOS the sync function of RdpxV2Core which will brick critical functionality

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The sync function of the RdpxV2Core contract is critical for ensuring that the cached balances of the tokens in the contract are up to date. For example, all of the AMO logic involves sending tokens directly to the RdpxV2Core contract, meaning there's no...

GetVault poolMatchesOracle calculation may overflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Overflow. Proof of Concept The GetVault derivative contract implements the poolMatchesOracle function, which is used by deposit, withdraw and rebalance functions. The poolMatchesOracle function checks that the pool price isn't manipulated using a Uniswap...

Usage of slot0 is extremely easy to manipulate

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Pool LP value can be manipulated and cause other users to receive less lp tokens. Proof of Concept TokenisableRange.sol uses slot0 to calculate several values in the code. slot0 is the most recent data point and is therefore extremely easy to manipulate...

slot0 is easily manipulatable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The deposit amount of a user can be manipulated. Proof of Concept slot0 is extremely easy to manipulate as it is the most recent data point. The issue arises due to there not being any protection against sqrtPriceX96 manipulation. // @audit no check...

TokenisableRange.sol claimFee function allows more slippage than intended due to incorrect calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In TokenisableRange.sol, claimFee collects swap fees generated in uniswap and compound these fees by minting to Uniswap pool. During minting collected fees back in uniswap, slippage protection is conducted by comparing addedValue - a value based on added...

GeVault#poolMatchesOracle is extemely easy to manipulate due to how it calculates underlying token balances

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact GeVaultpoolMatchesOracle uses the UniV3Pool.slot0 to determine the number of tokens it has in it's position. slot0 is the most recent data point and is therefore extremely easy to manipulate. Given that the protocol specializes in leverage, the effects o...

getAmountsForLiquidity used in TokenisableRange.sol uses mulDiv from UniswapV3 which expects overflow behavior, but overflows can't happen

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact getAmountsForLiquidity which is used in TokenisableRange.sol has the mulDiv function which is taken from UniswapV3 FullMath library, function which require overflow behavior, but that behavior will not be allowed in the Good Entry TokenisableRange.sol...

TokenisableRange.sol does not have onERC721Received

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact TokenisableRange.sol will be unable to mint Uniswap NFTs without a ERC721 Receiver. Proof of Concept TokenisableRange.sol intends to create liquidity NFTs using Uniswapv3 NonfungiblePositionManager. However, there is no callback to check onERC721Received...

Hardcoded slippage of 95% may not be ideal if liquidity is low or during market volatility, may result in revert when depositing or withdrawing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Larger Deposits and/or withdraw may not work with a 95% slippage parameter. If there are many swaps going on, the slippage should be less restrictive to allow for deposits/withdraws. Proof of Concept In TokenisableRange.sol, the slippage is hardcoded at...

Failed transfer with low level call could be overlooked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Transfers may fail silently. Proof of Concept According to the Solidity docs: "The low-level functions call, delegatecall and staticcall return true as their first return value if the account called is non-existent, as part of the design of the EVM...

Possible to stop trading

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It's possible to stop market due to division by 0 exception. So better to prevent this, because better to revert with missing minAmountOut than revert with some error, which might be complicated to detect. Proof of Concept There is a change to withdraw a...

Not using slippage parameter when interacting with AMMs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The slippage parameters are hardcoded to 0, meaning the minimum amount can be 0. The absence of slippage protection causes transactions to be vulnerable to front running. This can result in users potentially losing their funds. Proof of Concept...

Interactions with Pool do not use valid deadlines for operations

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Miner can potentially hold the transaction which results in loss of funds for users. Proof of Concept File: TalosBaseStrategy.sol liquidityDifference, amount0, amount1 = nonfungiblePositionManager.increaseLiquidity...

Calculation during rebalancing can overflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept Rebalancing logic in TalosBaseStrategy will start by the strategy manager calling TalosBaseStrategy.rebalance to swap imbalanced tokens. This function will call TalosStrategySimple.doRebalance Next, PoolActions.swapEqualAmounts will be called...

Liquidity providers may lose funds when initialising a strategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Liquidity providers may lose funds when initialising a strategy Vulnerability Detail Liquidity providers may lose a portion of provided liquidity in either of the pair tokens when creating a new position. The init function on TalosBaseStrategy.sol does...