Dutch auction getPrice() formula can lead to price reaching 0 and eventually reverting and locking the function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the function getPrice the current price is calculated by taking the start price and subtracting the product of dropPersecond and time elapsed. start price - dropPreSecond timeElapsed. The issue with this is that given the right inputs for dropPerSecon...

Loss of ETH for NFT buyers in LPDA contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buy function of LPDA sale contract can be invoked with 0 as the input value and 0 ETH as the sent valuemsg.value = 0. The buy function automatically ends the sale when newId == sale.finalId and distributes ETH to feeReceiver and saleReceiver. Since t...

double user token spending in function executeBuyWithCredit() contract transfer user wETH fund for wETH orders even when user send payment as ETH to contract and contract converted it to wETH (_depositETH() and _delegateToPool() takes user funds when user sends ETH and tries to buy WETH order)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when user wants to buy NFT tokens with wETH asset, and he/she sent ETH to executeBuyWithCredit or executeBatchBuyWithCredit, code would take user tokens two times, one as ETH token in depositETH and one as wETH tokens in delegateToPool so users would pay...

If very few NFTs have been sold saleReceiver will have to buy all remaining NFT to retrieve the contract funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If very few NFTs have been sold saleReceiver will have to buy all remaining NFTs if he want to get the funds that he obtained during the mint period. Fortunately, It is still possible to mint NFT after temp.endTime because the following check is not done...

call() should be used instead of transfer() on an address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact call should be used instead of transfer on an address payable Proof of Concept The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when: 1. The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function...

Implementing Security Restrictions and Owner Access Controls on LPDA Smart Contract.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Impact The new changes to the contract add an additional layer of security and restrict access to certain privileged functions. The buy function now requires that only the owner can purchase tokens, which prevents malicious actors from...

The Ether for an LPDA mint sale can be locked in the LPDA contract indefinitely

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After a mint sale using LPDA, all the Ether can be locked in the LPDA contract indefinitely. Proof of Concept In the src/minters/ contracts, the .transfer function is used for sending Ether. It is used for sending fees to the feeReceiver, and in the...

Implementation can be self destruct by deployer, effectively break all running sale and lock all assets.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Sale in Escher is deployed using minimal proxy pattern, where there is only 1 implementation contract is deployed to save deployment gas. Also, in Open Edition and FixedPrice sale, when sale is not started yet, owner can cancel it, self destruct the prox...

Malicious feeReceiver or saleReceiver can steal the user's refund ETH by calling the buy function multiple times in LPDA

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LPDA contract, the fee is transfered to feeReceiver and the totalSale to saleReceiver when newId == temp.finalId, meaning that the amount of tokens that were minted has been reached. However, the call to the internal end function only emits an eve...

Anyone can call addLiquidity function and be the router

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call addLiquidity, meaning that when IAddLiquidityCallbackmsg.sender.addLiquidityCallbacktokenAAmount, tokenBAmount, data; is called, the msg.sender can be a contract that a malicious user has deployed and has a addLiquidityCallbacktokenAAmoun...

Actor can input malicious data in the swap function inputs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function swap has a data input parameter, which can be defined by the caller. Any user could therefore define a token address that they will send. By doing so user could create their own token and send it instead of tokenA and receive tokenB for free. By...

Upgraded Q -> H from #439 [1670433195074]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 439 as H risk. The relevant finding follows: L02 - close should not be able to close a specific id credit line As per the docs: Can a Borrower chose to repay any debt in any order? No. The app automatically selects which credit line can be repaid using a...

Upgraded Q -> M from #35 [1670345543949]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 35 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: No. 2 Any smart contract that uses transfer or send is taking a hard dependency on gas costs by forwarding a fixed amount of gas: 2300. If gas costs are subject to change, then smart contracts can’t depend on any...

setRelayer function not checking for null relayer address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary When calling the setRelayer function with a null relayer address, the function does not check for this and allows the address to be set. This issue can cause the contract to fail when calling the executeCalls function and potentially cause loss of funds...

Incorrect use of AddressAliasHelper.applyL1ToL2Alias() in _isAuthorized()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary In the isAuthorized function, the require statement checks if the msg.sender is equal to the result of calling AddressAliasHelper.applyL1ToL2Alias with relayer as the argument. However, this is incorrect, as AddressAliasHelper.applyL1ToL2Alias is intend...

Missing msg.value when executing the cross-chain request

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the cross-chain request will not support smart contract that requires ETH payment in destination chain on execution side. Proof of Concept When a user relayers call and performs a cross-chain request, the executor needs to execute the request in the...

Potential security issues in CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Title: Potential security issues in CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract Product: CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract Version: 0.8.16 Summary: The CrossChainExecutorOptimism contract contains several potential security issues that could allow unauthorized or...

CrossChainExecutorPolygon does not implement the executeCalls function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CrossChainExecutor contracts in the codebase are meant to follow the CrossChainExecutor interface as defined in EIP-5164. Each L2 network specific CrossChainExecutor contract is also expected to inherit and follow the ICrossChainExecutor interface...

Incorrect behavior in CrossChainExecutorPolygon contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description: We have discovered an issue with the CrossChainExecutorPolygon contract. When a message with a nonce that has already been executed is received, the contract does not prevent the message from being processed or display an error message. This issue...

Upgraded Q -> M from #400 [1670235895275]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 400 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 - EOA restriction of wallet representative can be bypassed A node operator can call registerBLSPublicKeys to register a node runner to LSD and create a new smart wallet. The protocol only allows EOAs to be...