Fees don't always increase as buys increase

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact To simplify/showcase the situation, let's assume there are only buys in the protocol refer to the poc. There are occurrences where fees will actually be lower of equal to the previous buy, which is contradictory. This suggests that the fees calculation...

LACK OF DEADLINE AND SLIPPAGE CHECKS COULD PROMPT THE USERS TO EXECUTE THE BUY AND SELL TRANSACTIONS AT UNFAVOURABLE PRICE POINTS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Market.sol contract implements four functions which depend on the linear bonding curve to calculate the price and fee amounts associated with their logic execution. These functions are Market.buy, Market.sell, Market.mintNFT and Market.burnNFT. The...

Possible sandwhich attack whenever a user with a surplus of allowance calls market.buy().

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Because the exact amount of allowance a user needs to mint his desired amount of shares isnt always a round number as shown via the market.getBuyPriceid, amount;. There could be users who might trust the contract blind & approve their entire balance in...

asD::withdrawCarry assumes wrong number of decimals returned by exchangeRateCurrent which will cause owner to not be able to withdraw revenue

Lines of code Vulnerability details tl;dr asD::withdrawCarry assumes that the exchange rate returned by the cNote contract will be scaled by 1e28, but in reality it will be only scaled by 1e18. It will cause withdrawCarry to always revert with Integer Underflow, which means that owner won't ever ...

The owner of the asD contract (i.e. the creator) can not withdraw the accrued interest

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The asD.withdrawCarry function will always throw an error for all normal totalSupply values due to inappropriate scale factor. So the creator can withdraw the accrued interest only after all users will burn their asD tokens. Proof of Concept The scale...

Reentrancy leads to minting/burning/buying without paying the correct amount of fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Fee calculations depends on shareDataid.tokenCount, which is updated AFTER doing the transfer of token. That means, if the token is an ERC777 compatible token, users can reenter the function paying, for example, less fees on a buy operation. Proof of...

The rsETH price can be manipulated easily when the deposit is low

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The rsETH price can be manipulated easily when the deposit is low, since the price is relies on the contracts' balance. Proof of Concept The rsETH's price is calculated by $\fractotalassetvaluetotalsupply$, and when supply is zero, the price will be 1...

Malicious first depositor can steal all funds from all future depositors

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to a miscalculation in LRTOraclegetRSETHPrice, users who call LRTDepositPooldepositAsset when rsETH.totalSupply is non-zero will receive fewer rsETH tokens than they should due to a rounding error. This can be exploited by a malicious first depositor...

Mint amount calculation in deposit is incorrect

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The calculation in the deposit function of the DepositPool contract is flawed as it factors the deposited amount into the RSETH price to calculate the amount to mint. Impact When a user deposits in the DepositPool contract, the amount of RSETH to mint i...

Use contracts-upgradeable instead of contract variants of OpenZeppelin

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact OpenZeppelin’s contracts variants when used with upgradeability will result in negative impact on the overall contract functionality. Check this OpenZeppelin warning about mixing contract variants with upgradeable-contract. Proof of Concept Upgradeable...

User can not receive own assets back

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The user has the opportunity to deposit tokens, but does not have the opportunity to withdraw them back. Consequently, his tokens will be locked in the contract and he will not be able to take them back. Yes, the contract is upgradable - but this does no...

Changing rsETH address breaks contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact manipulating rsETH price Proof of Concept admin can change rsETH token address, while total supply of rsETH is used to calculate its price changing rsETH address changes its price. Tools Used Manual Review Recommended Mitigation Steps prevent changing...

Missing pause checks in LRTOracle

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The LRTOracle oracle provides functionality to pause the contract but no restrictions are applied when the contract is in a paused state. Impact Similar to the other contracts in the protocol, the LRTOracle contract offers pausing functionality: 101: //...

No function to distribute secondary sales royalties split.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The minter contract currently does not have a way to reliably share the secondary sales revenue for the proposed addresses and splits. Proof of Concept Contract : NextGenMinterContract The minter contract uses collectionArtistSecondaryAddresses and...

Missing Reentry Protection in 'emergencyWithdraw' function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Ensure that all state changes in emergencyWithdraw are done before the external call to prevent reentrancy attacks. The function is vulnerable to reentrancy attacks due to the use of .callvalue: balance"". This can be mitigated by adding a reentrancy guard.- Po...

When the burnToMint function is enabled, any bad actor can transfer the nft-to-burn when it receives the newly minted nft, getting burned after he no longer is the owner.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Medium impact, it affects the functionallity of the nfts with other contracts, as they wouldn't want to interact with tokens that could get burned. Explanation in the NextGenCore contract, the burnToMint function has the minting of the new nft, which mak...

mint with sales option 3 doesn't work as expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary lastMintDatecol is set to be higher than expected, which can lead to the minting process being blocked for some time. Vulnerability Details In the mint function in the MintContract if the salesOption of the collection is set to 3 then we can only mint 1...

Contract can be drained from the claimAuction contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to the way the claimAuction function is written, it is also possible to drain the contract when sending bids back to users. This can only happen if the highestBidder made multiple bids which is likely. Proof of Concept In this section of the...

Adding a randomizer to a collection should be mandatory

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The minting process will be broken. Proof of Concept In the current setup, a randomizer contract can be associated with each collection, and it plays a crucial role in generating a random value for token uniqueness during the minting process. Here's a...

Royalty Payment Invariant Violation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The vulnerability in the payment mechanism of the smart contract significantly impacts the protocol's functionality. The root cause of the vulnerability is that, despite the README stating an invariant that "Payments can only be made when royalties are...