User don't have to deposit for a week into the market to get his weekly reward from the LendingLedger

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LendingLedger contract, a user is rewarded with CANTO tokens depending on how long he has his deposit in the market. Rewards are distributed for each week during which the deposit was inside the market. However, the user can cheat this condition...

User can claim most of the rewards for a lending market by depositing cNote for just 2 blocks / epoch

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact For a user to receive rewards for supplying cNote in a lending market LM, he only needs to have supplied the cNote at the end of an epoch. Users staking for the whole duration of an epoch get 0 benefits, compared to users who supply only at the end of th...

Deposit will always revert when depositing ETH if one of the GeVault tokens is not WETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a user deposits funds, the deposit function requires an argument namely, the address of the token with which to fund the transaction. If the GeVault has two tokens of for example: USDC/DAI. Line 251 expects the function argument to be the address of...

Inflation attacks with virtual shares and assets on GeVault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An inflation attacks can be done on the first deposit into the GeVault contract. Making the first real depositor losing his deposit. Proof of Concept Inflation attack steps : First, Alice the attacker need to craft a deposit that put valueX8 = 1 = Thus...

slot0 is easily manipulatable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The deposit amount of a user can be manipulated. Proof of Concept slot0 is extremely easy to manipulate as it is the most recent data point. The issue arises due to there not being any protection against sqrtPriceX96 manipulation. // @audit no check...

Use of slot0 to get sqrtPriceLimitX96 can lead to price manipulation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contracts functions have used UniswapV3.slot0 to get the value of sqrtPriceX96 which it use to perform the swap, however the sqrtPriceX96 gotten from Uniswap.slot0 is the most recent data point and can be manipulated easily via MEV bots & Flashloans...

removeFromAllTicks() withdraws all tick assets before deposit and withdraw re-deposit them creates a reentrancy attacks.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact reentrancy attacks can result to stolen funds Proof of Concept The key issue is that removeFromAllTicks calls removeFromTickindex in a loop, which calls lendingPool.withdraw and tr.withdraw. These external calls could trigger a reentrant call back into t...

StargateRewardableWrapper._claimAssetRewards should use stakingContract.withdraw(poolId, 0)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact StargateRewardableWrapper.claimAssetRewards leverage stakingContract.depositpoolId, 0; to claim rewards from Stargate. But it could fail to claim the reward in the edge case. Proof of Concept StargateRewardableWrapper.claimAssetRewards calls...

borrowInternal() of BaseTOFTMarketModule.sol has phantom permit functions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A malicious actor could steal funds from a User who has already done his first deposit. Proof of Concept Consider the case where attacker uses a token with phantom permit function as collateral, the most famous ones being WETH, BNB, HEX etc. Let’s consid...

Permanent funds lock in StargateRewardableWrapper

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The staked funds might be locked because the deposit/withdraw/transfer logic reverts. Proof of Concept In StargateRewardableWrapper, claimAssetRewards claims the accumulated rewards from the staking contract and it's called during every...

Potential Early Exploit in Morho-Aave ERC4626 Implementation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The issue discovered can be exploited when a vault is initially empty. A malicious actor could frontrun a legitimate user's deposit, contributing a negligible amount to the vault. This allows the actor to own shares while the total asset in the vault is...

deposit function does not check for the maxMint amount.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is theoretically possible for the deposit amount to mint shares more than the maxMint amount Proof of Concept The deposit function has a check for maxDeposit and reverts if the deposit value is more than maxuint96. But, it does not check the shares to...

Deposit transaction is prone to being front-run by bad actors.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is possible for an attacker to front-run a user's deposit transaction while transferring fewer amount of assets than the user and minting an equivalent amount of shares as the user could have. Proof of Concept The scenario described below is for the...

Sponsor function allows voiding some elses chance to win

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can delegate someone elses balance to the sponsorship address, increasing their own likelihood of winning, while voiding the victims chance. Proof of Concept The issue is in the call-chain starting with Vault.sponsor: //Vault function sponsoruint2...

Attacker can steal vault funds through the deposit function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the deposit function, a check is made to see if the amount of assets being deposited by the user is greater than the amount of assets the vault currently holds. The vault then transfers the difference between the assets being deposited and the vault’s...

Possible Issues Related to Well Initial State

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description && Impact After creating the Well contract, there will be no reserves in the initial state. Therefore it could lead to the following possible issues and the attackers can take advantage of them through front running. 1. Price manipulation attacks Wh...

Potential Loss of Funds Due to Zero Slippage Hardcoding in TalosBaseStrategy#deposit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the deposit function within the TalosBaseStrategy contract, both slippage for two tokens amount0Min and amount1Min are hardcoded to zero. This can have severe implications as users may unintentionally accept a minimum of zero output tokens from a swap...

_createDepositSingle() call bridgeOut missing normalizeDecimals

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Wrong decimal place conversion, resulting in wrong quantity Proof of Concept in createDepositSingle will call IPortlocalPortAddress.bridgeOut The parameter deposit is not converted to 18 decimal createDepositSingle function createDepositSingle address...

## Significant roundoff error in depositToPort function (ArbitrumBranchBridgeAgent.sol )

Lines of code Vulnerability details Significant roundoff error in depositToPort function ArbitrumBranchBridgeAgent.sol This issue is caused with different decimals than 18. As an Eg USDC, WBTC. Let's consider the USDC as the case scenario. If User deposit USDC into the depositToPort function, He...

Duplicate Transactions

code.vegaprotocol.io/vega is vulnerable to Duplicate Transactions. The vulnerability allows an attacker to trick a validator node into processing duplicate transactions, resulting in 50x deposit amount...