CVE-2023-46247 Vyper has incorrect storage layout for contracts containing large arrays

Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum Virtual Machine EVM. Contracts containing large arrays might underallocate the number of slots they need by 1. Prior to v0.3.8, the calculation to determine how many slots a storage variable needed used math.ceiltype.sizeinbytes / 32. T...

CVE-2023-46247

CVE-2023-46247 concerns Vyper (EVM) where contracts with large arrays could underallocate storage slots by 1 due to a rounding error in the calculation of required slots. Prior to v0.3.8, storage size was computed as ceil(type_.size_in_bytes / 32); when type_.size_in_bytes is large (>2**46) or...

CVE-2023-46247 Vyper has incorrect storage layout for contracts containing large arrays

Vyper is a Pythonic Smart Contract Language for the Ethereum Virtual Machine EVM. Contracts containing large arrays might underallocate the number of slots they need by 1. Prior to v0.3.8, the calculation to determine how many slots a storage variable needed used math.ceiltype.sizeinbytes / 32. T...

Unsafe usage of msg.value in a loop

Lines of code 140 Vulnerability details The value of msg.value in a transaction's call never gets updated, even if the called contract ends up sending some or all of the Eth to another contract. This means that using msg.value in a for- or while-loop, without extra accounting logic, will either...

Use of transferFrom() rather than safeTransferFrom() for NFTs in will lead to the loss of NFTs

Lines of code 230, 342, 514, 536 Vulnerability details The EIP-721 standard says the following about transferFrom: /// @notice Transfer ownership of an NFT -- THE CALLER IS RESPONSIBLE /// TO CONFIRM THAT to IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING NFTS OR ELSE /// THEY MAY BE PERMANENTLY LOST /// @dev Throws...

Interface improperly implemented

Lines of code 34, 34, 34, 34, 30, 31, 32, 34, 35, 38https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapioca-yieldbox-strategies-audi...

Proxy's logic contract relies on code in the constructor

Lines of code 122, 50, 25, 67, 98, 67, 22 Vulnerability details Logic contracts cannot rely on code in their constructors, because proxy contracts do not re-execute the logic contract's constructor - only its initializer. Move all code in the constructor to the initializer function. File:...

Excess funds sent via msg.value not refunded

Lines of code 201 Vulnerability details The code below allows the caller to provide Ether, but does not refund the amount in excess of what's required, leaving funds stranded in the contract. The condition should be changed to check for equality, or the code should refund the excess. File:...

Design/Logic Flaw

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for smart contract development. A merge issue when porting the 5.0.1 patch to the 4.9 branch caused a line duplication. In the version of Multicall.sol released in @openzeppelin/email protected and @openzeppelin/email protected, all subcalls are executed twice...

CVE-2023-49798

OpenZeppelin Contracts’ CVE-2023-49798 relates to a merge-conflict error in the Multicall.sol implementation that caused all subcalls to be executed twice in versions @openzeppelin/[email protected] and @openzeppelin/[email protected]. This duplication could lead to unintended duplicate o...

CVE-2023-49798 Duplicated execution of subcalls in OpenZeppelin Contracts

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for smart contract development. A merge issue when porting the 5.0.1 patch to the 4.9 branch caused a line duplication. In the version of Multicall.sol released in @openzeppelin/[email protected] and @openzeppelin/[email protected], all subcalls are...

CVE-2023-49798 Duplicated execution of subcalls in OpenZeppelin Contracts

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for smart contract development. A merge issue when porting the 5.0.1 patch to the 4.9 branch caused a line duplication. In the version of Multicall.sol released in @openzeppelin/[email protected] and @openzeppelin/[email protected], all subcalls are...

Multiple re-entrancy issues allowing stealing of funds and bypassing protocol mint limits

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Multiple re-entrancy issues exist in the codebase, that break core functionality and allow stealing of user funds. In AuctionDemo.sol contract re-entrancy in cancelBid and cancelAllBids allows stealing of user funds. There are multiple attack surfaces,...

The protocol is susceptible to reentrancy attacks.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Reentrancy is a well know bug in smart contract and the protocol is not handling it, The safeMint function in ERC721 make a callback to the receiver checking if they can hold a nft, this can be used to a receiver to take control of the execution of the call. in...

Unwrapping function emits event with incorrect values.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The etherUnwrap function in the smart contract does not correctly emit the EtherUnwrap event. The issue arises when calculating and emitting the fee and transfer amounts. The current implementation deducts the fee, transfers the calculated amount, and...

Unrestricted Unwrap Fee Changes: Instability, Market Disruption, and Loss of Trust

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current changeUnwrapFee function in the Ocean smart contract allows the owner to change the unwrap fee divisor with no restrictions, leading to several negative impacts: 1. Unstable Unwrap Fees: Frequent changes in the divisor can cause instability a...

Unwrap Fee Rounding Down: Revenue Loss, User Unfairness, and Reduced Confidence

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The issue with the unwrap fee rounding down can have several detrimental impacts on the Ocean protocol: 1. Revenue Loss: Due to rounding down, the contract loses out on potential unwrap fees, particularly for smaller unwrap amounts. This can significantl...

An attacker can mint more than they are allowed due to MinterContract.sol#mint() reentrancy vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description mintProcessing in NextGenCore.sol calls OpenZeppelin’s safeMint from their ERC721 contract to mint a token. safeMint checks if the target address is a contract by calling checkOnERC721Received to ensure it supports receiving NFTs. If the target...

[H-02] The Ocean contract and the onERC721Received function is vulnerable to read-only re-entrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract.function called Ocean.onERC721Received is vulnerable to read-only re-entrancy. The read-only re-entrancy is possible if the contract function is called externally from another contract. What follows are the functions that are traversed throu...

Ocean cannot _mintBatch() as onERC1155BatchRecieved() not implemeneted on the Ocean contract when batch transferring to itself

Lines of code Vulnerability details The comment @ Ocean L348 states: The Ocean never initiates ERC1155 Batch Transfers. This is untrue, note the following callstack: Ocean.doMultipleInteractions | Ocean.forwardedDoMultipleInteractions Ocean.doMultipleInteractions calls mintBatch @ L560...