Rewards can be locked in Bribe contract because distributing them is depend of base token reward amount and Gauge.deliverBribes() is not get called always by Voter.distribute()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Voter.distribute calls Gauge.deliverBribes if claimablegauge / DURATION 0 was True and claimablegauge shows base token rewards for gauge. Gauge.deliverBribes calls Bribe.deliverReward which transfers the rewards to Gauge. so for Bribe rewards to been...

Bribe Rewards Struck In Contract If Deposited During First Epoch

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability Details Bribe rewards added to the Bribe contract in the first epoch will not be claimable by any voters, and the rewards will struck in the Bribe contract. Proof-of-Concept Assume that the current epoch is epoch 0, and start date of epoch 0 is Da...

Voting overwrites checkpoint.voted in last checkpoint, so users can just vote right before claiming rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if cp0.voted reward += cp0.balanceOf rewardPerTokenStored1 - rewardPerTokenStored0 / PRECISION; this line in gauge.earned function looks like the intention here is to incentivize users to keep their escrow.balanceOfNft voted for this gauge. However, it's...

Bribe Rewards Not Collected In Current Period Will Be Lost Forever

Lines of code Vulnerability details High Bribe Rewards Not Collected In Current Period Will Be Lost Forever Vulnerability Details It was observed that if the bribe rewards are not collected in the current period, they will not be accrued to future epoch, and they will be lost forever...

Voting tokens may be lost when given to non-EOA accounts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact veNFTs may be sent to contracts that cannot handle them, and therefore all rewards and voting power, as well as the underlying are locked forever Proof of Concept The original code had the following warning: @dev Safely transfers tokenId token from from ...

Incorrect msg.value usage could lead to fund loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The burnToTarget function is using msg.value in a loop which is passed to swapAll function of swapperRouter. Since msg.value amount will not change within loop, contract will end up using its own ETH Proof of Concept 1. User calls burnToTarget function...

Voting Escrow System could be wrapped and made useless without contract whitelisting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone could create a contract or a contract factory, say “Velo Locker" with a fonction to deposit VELO tokens through a contract, lock them and delegate the voting power to the contract owner. Then, the ownership of this contract could be sold, or the...

VotingEscrow's merge and withdraw aren't available for approved users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Users who are approved, but do not own a particular NFT, are supposed to be eligible to call merge and withdraw from the NFT. Currently burn, used by merge and withdraw to remove the NFT from the system, will revert unless the sender is the owner of NFT as the...

Gauge: Attacker can call notifyRewardAmount function to insert malicious token to prevent reward distribution

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The notifyRewardAmount function of the Gauge contract can be called by anyone, and can insert any token when rewards.length MAXREWARDTOKENS. And the notifyRewardAmount function of the Gauge contract will call the addRewardToken of the Bribe contract to a...

Increase voting power by tokenizing the address that locks the token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Without restriction on the type of address that lock the token, a bad actor could lock the token through the smart contract. Doing so enable him to make the lockedToken becomes liquidate by tokenize his smart contract which defeat the purpose of the...

ConvexMasterChef's deposit and withdraw can be reentered drawing all reward funds from the contract if reward token allows for transfer flow control

Lines of code Vulnerability details Reward token accounting update in deposit and withdraw happens after reward transfer. If reward token allows for the control of transfer call flow or can be upgraded to allow it in the future i.e. have or can introduce the beforetokentransfer, afterTokenTransfe...

Impossible Clearance of Delegate

Lines of code Vulnerability details ALR-01M: Impossible Clearance of Delegate | File | Lines | Type ---|---|--- AuraLocker.sol | L464-L509 | Code Functionality Description The delegate function disallows clearance of any existing delegation, thereby forcing the user to retain a delegate active...

Integer overflow will lock all rewards in AuraLocker

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a potential overflow in the rewards calculations which would lead to updateReward always reverting. The impact of this overflow is that all reward tokens will be permanently locked in the contract. User's will be unable to call any of the...

AuraClaimZap may transfer CVX tokens to itself which become locked in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact During AuraClaimZap.claimExtras if the option LockCvx is set to false then the contract will transfer CVX tokens from the msg.sender to this contract without forwarding them on to the user. There is no way to retrieve these funds from the protocol and...

gemachain-bpf-loader-program (1.8.0), lido (1.1.0-patch.1) +42 more potentially affected by CVE-2022-31264 via solana_rbpf (>=0.1.5, <=0.2.24)

solanarbpf CARGO version =0.1.5, =1.2.3, =0.1.1, =0.1.4, =0.1.0, =1.0.2, =3.0.1, =1.6.16, =1.6.16, =1.2.3, =1.2.4 and more Source cves: CVE-2022-31264 Source advisory: OSV:GHSA-FFX3-8QVM-PQ3J...

ConvexMasterChef: When _lpToken is cvx, reward calculation is incorrect

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the ConvexMasterChef contract, a new staking pool can be added using the add function. The staking token for the new pool is defined using the lpToken variable. However, there is no additional checking whether the lpToken is the same as the reward tok...

ConvexMasterChef: When _lpToken is duplicated, reward calculation is incorrect

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Same as IDX-002 in In the ConvexMasterChef contract, a new staking pool can be added using the add function. The staking token for the new pool is defined using the lpToken variable. However, there is no additional checking whether the lpToken is already...

Griefing attack by transferring aTokens to the contract

Originally part of a QA report by Tadashi 69 Griefing attack by transferring aTokens to the contract Summary: tokenToShares uses the following formula for computing the total shares of an user: return supply == 0 ? tokens : tokens.mulsupply.divaToken.balanceOfaddressthis; An attacker wishing to...

contractcateringmagazine.co.uk Cross Site Scripting vulnerability OBB-2621814

Following the coordinated and responsible vulnerability disclosure guidelines of the ISO 29147 standard, Open Bug Bounty has: a. verified the vulnerability and confirmed its existence; b. notified the website operator about its existence. Technical details of the vulnerability are currently hidde...

[gALCX.sol] Attacker can make the contract unusable when totalSupply is 0

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can make the contract unusable when totalSupply is 0. Specifically, bumpExchangeRate function does not work correctly which results in making stake, unstake and migrateSource functions that do not work as expected. Proof of Concept Here are...