Loss of token if a smart contract perform a cross-chain transfer using source bridge

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Loss of a token ownership if a smart contract perform a cross-chain transfer using source bridge Proof of Concept When a caller call burnAndCallAxelar, the token is burnt on source chain and the payload is encoded in this way: bytes memory payload =...

Risk of Token Get Stuck in burnAndCallAxelar Function due to Use of Same Chain ID

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The burnAndCallAxelar function within the contract presents a potential risk where tokens can become stuck if the same chain ID is used for both the source and destination chains. In this scenario, tokens are burned from the user's account, and a...

Token Loss on Failed Destination Chain Call

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The burnAndCallAxelar function allows users to burn tokens from their account with the intention of executing a cross-chain call. However, the tokens are burned before the cross-chain call is attempted. If the cross-chain call fails on the destination...

Cross-chain replay attacks are possible

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In MarketERC20.sol we have permit function: function permit / bool asset, // 1 = asset, 0 = collateral address owner, address spender, uint256 value, uint256 deadline, uint8 v, bytes32 r, ...

First Depositor Attack is possible by front-running mip00 script execution

Lines of code Vulnerability details Overview The First Depositor Attack Within the context of Compound v2, a First Depositor Attack occurs when an attacker becomes the inaugural minter of a cToken. This enables them to establish the first exchange rate between the underlying asset and the cToken...

[H] Users can lose their funds if the transaction reverts on destination chain

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The transmitSendToken function in the contract facilitates cross-chain token transfers. For contracts involving ERC20 tokens it is also expected that, should a contract call fail, one's tokens are not lost/transferred elsewhere. However, the function doe...

Users can abuse multicall feature on InterchainTokenService to steal contract funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can steal balance in InterchainTokenService to pay gas fees for remote chain calls through multicall in InterchainTokenService.sol. Proof of Concept User can send multiple calls at the same time on InterchainTokenService contract with the help of...

Gas refunds are returned to the wrong address, leading to loss of funds for the payer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact To pay for cross-chain messages/calls, a user/third-party service must pay a reasonable fee in this case using the native token. However, often times a user will overpay to ensure that there is an adequate buffer for their tx to successfully succeed in...

Users who call expressReceiveTokenWithData or expressReceiveToken can griefed to pay for fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A user or service who calls expressReceiveTokenWithData or expressReceiveToken generally waits for an event associated with either callContractWithInterchainToken or sendToken to be emitted on a second chain. When they see this event, they will call...

Underpaying Optimism l2gas(_minGasLimit) may lead to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract L1StandardBridge.sol is susceptible to a vulnerability where underpaying the l2Gashere in all contract, it used as "minGasLimit" value provided by users can result in a potential loss of funds. This vulnerability exists in the depositERC20 a...

ERC20 token bridge does not support token with different decimals

Lines of code Vulnerability details ERC20 token bridge does not support token with different decimals Summary ERC20 token bridge does not support token with different decimals Vulnerability Detail In the current implementation: User can perform ERC20 cross-chain transfer via token bridge. Let us...

Lack of expiration time for cross-chain message passing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Lack of expiration time for cross-chain message passing Summary Lack of expiration time for cross-chain message passing Vulnerability Detail In the current implementation, the L1CrossDomainMessagern.sol inherits from CrossDomainMessager.sol and...

Tenet and LayerZero Forge Cross-Chain LSD Adoption

By Owais Sultan Tenet and LayerZero Partner to Pioneer Cross-Chain Liquidity for Liquid Staking Derivatives. This is a post from HackRead.com Read the original post: Tenet and LayerZero Forge Cross-Chain LSD Adoption...

How Cross-Chain DEXes are Democratizing the Crypto Market?

By Owais Sultan In this article, we will explore how cross-chain DEXes are revolutionizing the crypto market and levelling the playing field for traders of all backgrounds. This is a post from HackRead.com Read the original post: How Cross-Chain DEXes are Democratizing the Crypto Market?...

SUSE CVE-2015-1573

The nftflushtable function in net/netfilter/nftablesapi.c in the Linux kernel before 3.18.5 mishandles the interaction between cross-chain jumps and ruleset flushes, which allows local users to cause a denial of service panic by leveraging the CAPNETADMIN capability...

Friday Squid Blogging: Squid Is a Blockchain Thingy

I had no idea--until I read this incredibly jargon-filled article: Squid is a cross-chain liquidity and messaging router that swaps across multiple chains and their native DEXs via axlUSDC. So there. As usual, you can also use this squid post to talk about the security stories in the news that I...

Cross-Chain Transaction Replay Attack

github.com/elrondnetwork/elrond-go is vulnerable to cross chain transaction reply. The vulnerability exists in the computeExistingAndRequestMissing function in basePreProcess.go because it is subject to a processing issue where nodes are affected when trying to process a cross-shard relayed...

Cross-chain request does not have expiration time

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Cross-chain request does not have expiration time Proof of Concept In the current implementation, a caller in source chain can perform a relayer call to starts a cross-chain request. But it is not clearly when the executor will be executing the...

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...

the executor can execute fake cross-chain function call

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The caller on relayer side can be rugged if the executor call the executeCall on execution side directly to use consume the nonce and fake cross-chain function call. Proof of Concept The expected behavior is that: the relayer relays a cross-chain request...