Exchange.sol#L87 : openTrade is returning incorrect totalCost value which has accounting issue when open or closing the trade.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It returns the incorrect value. Any operation done based on this function,either at front end of at contract level , could end with incorrect output. Proof of Concept User can interact with Exchangle.sol to trade. He/she will call the openTrade. openTrad...

Namespace fuse ignores font class attribute from tile data

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The fuse function present in the Namespace contract mints a new Namespace NFT based on the given character data that references Tray tiles owned by the caller. For each character, the implementation will use the characterToUnicodeBytes function from the...

The call to MsgValueSimulator with non zero msg.value will call to sender itself which will bypass the onlySelf check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact First, I need to clarify, there may be more serious ways to exploit this issue. Due to the lack of time and documents, I cannot complete further exploit. The current exploit has only achieved the impact in the title. I will expand the possibility of...

Underflow if enough amount is sent to the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In function withdraw function withdrawaddress l1Receiver external payable override uint256 amount = msg.value; // Silent burning of the ether unchecked balanceaddressthis -= amount; totalSupply -= amount; they are using unchecked to decrease balances. Th...

deploying contracts with forceDeployOnAddress will break contracts when callConstructor is false

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when function forceDeployOnAddress used for deploying contract and callConstructor is false, then contract's bytecodehash would stay in constructing state and calling the contract won't be possible. it can cause protocol and other contracts that are usin...

function _nonSystemDeployOnAddress() should try another nonces when getNewAddressCreate() result is in kernel space otherwise some logics would be broken

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function createAccount Deploys a contract account with similar address derivation rules to the EVM's CREATE opcode. the deployed contract address is calculated based on sender deployed nonce. code uses nonSystemDeployOnAddress to deploy the contract to n...

NonceHolder.setValueUnderNonce lack of validation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact NonceHolder.setValueUnderNonce can set the nonce value for key has already being used. Proof of Concept Quoting to the document NonceHolder part: It provides a function validateNonceUsage which the bootloader uses to check whether the nonce has been used...

[Medium - 2] A force deployed contract may be stuck in the constructor forever

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The forceDeployOnAddress function in the ContractDeployer contract may be used to redeploy contracts at a specified address. Very useful in the case of precompiles or system contracts upgrades for instance. In the deployment parameters, multiple values c...

ProfilePictureData is not stored, which will cause serious logic errors

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact All data minted by the contract will not be stored, paralyzing the entire contract Proof of Concept code snippet： function mintaddress nftContract, uint256 nftID external uint256 tokenId = ++numMinted; if ERC721nftContract.ownerOfnftID != msg.sender reve...

Unsafe system contract verification

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact On the following function: function isSystemContractaddress address internal pure returns bool return uint160address = uint160MAXSYSTEMCONTRACTADDRESS; it does check whether an address is a system contract by checking whether it is smaller than...

Anyone can steal funds in the Contract Deployer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If ContractDeployer.sol ever holds funds, it could potentially be drained via the chained creation of new contracts. Proof of Concept When creating a contract the create/create2 functions will be called inside the contract deployer here: , which after...

Here are some potential security vulnerabilities that I have identified in this particular contract (BytecodeCompressor.sol)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact 1. Integer overflow: In the publishCompressedBytecode function, the check dictionary.length = 2 16 8 is intended to ensure that the dictionary does not become too large, but it is not sufficient to prevent an integer overflow. If dictionary.length exceed...

Wrong Implementation of EIP-712

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The EIP-712 uses several parameters. Those parameters are exactly: EIP712Domain string name; string version; uint256 chainId; address verifyingContract; As you can see on the following Domain, ZkSync, is missing one parameter: bytes32 constant...

Attacker could potentially burn the token balance of totalSupply and L2EthContract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Attacker potentially can burn all L2EthContract and totalSupply tokens Proof of Concept function withdrawaddress l1Receiver external payable override uint256 amount = msg.value; // Silent burning of the ether unchecked balanceaddressthis -= amount;...

Missing check for NFT contract, a bad actor can mint a PFP NFT without having a CID NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Missing check for NFT contract, a bad actor can mint a PFP NFT without having a CID NFT. Proof of Concept The ProfilePicture.mint is used to mint a new PFP NFT. function mintaddress nftContract, uint256 nftID external uint256 tokenId = ++numMinted; if...

Bytecode Compressor Contract Replay Attack.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Injection of duplicate code. Proof of Concept In the markBytecodeAsPublished function, the contract does not check whether a particular hash has already been added to the storage. The contract only checks the current marker value of the hash, which is se...

Misconfiguration of LP token contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the LP token contract is set to a non-contract address or a no-revert-on-transfer token, users will be able to: 1. Mint huge amounts of BYTES 2.0 tokens. 2. Drain the contract of all its LP tokens. Vulnerability Details Throughout the contract, it is...

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...

Infinite mint via points underflow (in scope)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to unchecked math in the withdrawLP function, a user can trigger an underflow in their points and infinitely increase their rewards. The problem exists in several places. Problem 1. The configureTimelockOptions function allows setting...

Audit Findings for BYTES Token Contract - Burn Function Vulnerabilities

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact BYTES2.burn: The function burn allows authorized callers to burn BYTES tokens from a specific address and mint DAO taxes. However, the function does not check if the from address actually has enough BYTES tokens to burn. This means that an attacker could...