Overflow Vulnerability in Splits Contract Due to Maximum Splits Receivers Limitation (_MAX_SPLITS_RECEIVERS = 200)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If more than 200 splits receivers are added for a single user, the constant MAXSPLITSRECEIVERS will be exceeded, causing unexpected behavior in the contract uint256 internal constant MAXSPLITSRECEIVERS = 200; Proof of Concept a. Create an array of splits...

STORAGE LOCATION OF liquidityPosition OF ONE USER IS OVERWRITEN BY THE liquidityPosition OF ANOTHER USER

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the pool.sol contract under the transferFees function, the pool liquidity position of the msg.sender is assigned to the storage variable liquidityPosition. And this liquidityPosition is updated for new fee allocation and fee burning. The transaction f...

Incorrect totalSupply() function design

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In ERC1155Enumerable.solL36-L37 line, totalsuppyl of ERC1155 is calculated packages/v2-token/src/base/ERC1155Enumerable.sol: 34 35: /// @inheritdoc IERC1155Enumerable 36: function totalSupply public view override returns uint256 37: return...

User can open position without depositing tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can mint long/short tokens without depositing anything. This is because the function on LN 172 doesn't check the contents of the returned data from the function, and the function doesn't verify that the contract has indeed received the expected...

ATTACKER CAN STEAL FUNDS BECAUSE OF REENTRANCY VULNERABILITY IN burn METHOD

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In burn method of TimeswapV2Option contract, there is no Reentrancy guard. The method allows a Callback function before updating the State variable, which makes method vulnerable for Reentrancy which can lead to steal of funds. Proof of Concept File:...

Upgraded Q -> M from #404 [1674736828553]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 404 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑06 Owner can renounce while system is paused The contract owner or single user with a role is not prevented from renouncing the role/ownership while the contract is paused, which would cause any user assets stored ...

Upgraded Q -> M from #258 [1674661917738]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 258 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 Use of deprecated functions Impact The contract uses deprecated function latestAnswer. Such functions might suddenly stop working if no longer supported. Impact: Deprecated API stops working. Prices cannot be...

Upgraded Q -> M from #229 [1674661441196]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 229 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Support for IERC165 interface id is missed Contract: Impact: Contract fails to support a valid interface which could lead to failure of genuine calls Steps: Observe the supportsInterface function...

Unchecked Token Minting: A Critical Vulnerability in Timeswap V2 Token Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It allows an attacker to mint new tokens without proper checks and validations, which can result in an inflation of the total supply of tokens and a loss of funds for the contract's owner or users. The contract's "mint" function allows the attacker to mi...

Unsecured usage of msg.sender in smart contract functions TimeswapV2Pool.sol.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The bug is related to the use of the msg.sender in the smart contract functions. The msg.sender is a built-in variable in the Solidity programming language, which represents the address of the account that called the function, the msg.sender is used to...

Rapid7 Added to Carahsoft GSA Schedule Contract

We are happy to announce that Rapid7 has been added to Carahsoft’s GSA Schedule contract, making our suite of comprehensive security solutions widely available to Federal, State, and Local agencies through Carahsoft and its reseller partners. “With the ever-evolving threat landscape, it is...

_CONDUIT_CONTROLLER variable is immutable, meaning it cannot be reassigned to a different contract after the contract is deployed.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact CONDUITCONTROLLER variable is immutable, meaning it cannot be reassigned to a different contract after the contract is deployed. This may be an issue if the original contract is no longer being maintained or if a different contract is needed for some...

Managing Incomplete Transactions in the _assertConsiderationLengthIsNotLessThanOriginalConsiderationLength Function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the assertConsiderationLengthIsNotLessThanOriginalConsiderationLength function, the revertMissingOriginalConsiderationItems function is called if the supplied consideration item total is less than the original consideration item total. However, there ...

The getMaxTreeBrackets function does not handle the case when the suffixes array cannot be created due to memory constraints.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if MaxTreeHeight is set to a very large value, such as 10^9, and twoSubstringLength is also set to a large value, such as 100, then the suffixes array would require 10^9 100 bytes of memory to be created. If the contract does not have that much memory...

The _verifySignature function skips signature verification if the offerer is the caller.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact it could have a significant impact on the security of the smart contract. The function is intended to verify the signature of an order, but if the offerer is the caller, the function skips the signature verification. This could allow someone other than t...

The _verifyTime function only reverts if revertOnInvalid is true and the order is not active.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The verifyTime function only reverts if revertOnInvalid is true and the order is not active. This means that if revertOnInvalid is not passed or is false, the function will not revert even if the order is not active. It could have a significant impact on...

Threat: Replay attack vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The code does not check for the possibility of a replay attack on the contract, if the same order hash is being used multiple times Proof of Concept A replay attack is a type of attack where an attacker intercepts a valid transaction and resends it...

Reentrancy attacks : if the functions in the interfaces are called in a malicious contract that calls back into the calling contract before the first call completes.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reentrancy attacks could be possible if the functions in the interfaces are called in a malicious contract that calls back into the calling contract before the first call completes. Proof of Concept A malicious contract is created that calls the...

Upgraded Q -> M from #164 [1674419095024]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 164 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: LOW‑1 The Contract Should approve0 First Some tokens like USDT L199 do not work when changing the allowance from an existing non-zero allowance value. They must first be approved by zero and then the actual allowance...

Lack of Input Validation in the Conduit Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description: The Conduit contract is a smart contract that serves as an originator for proxied transfers of ERC20, ERC721, and ERC1155 tokens. The contract's execute function takes an input of type ConduitTransfer calldata transfers which is an array of...