PoolSelector.computePoolAllocationForDeposit could return an unfair value.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When calling StaderStakePoolsManager.validatorBatchDeposit, it calls PoolSelector.computePoolAllocationForDeposit to get the validator count to deposit for the pool. It calculates the count based on the capacity and the weight of the pool. However,...

Tokens can be lost when trying to deposit in SDCaollateral.depositSDAsCollateral() or trying to withdraw SDCaollateral.withdraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Some tokens do not return the success of the token submission. Because Since we don’t know for sure how the SD token is implemented, we need to take this into account. Proof of Concept A detailed example is listed in: Tools Used Manual audit Recommended...

Loss of user funds due to gas Limit set to zero on L2StandardBridge

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User loss of funds in the event a deposit fails. Proof of Concept In L2StandardBridge.finalizeDeposit, there exists an issue related to the gas limit setting. In the event of a failed transfer, it attempts to create a return transaction to refund the use...

The return value of an external transfer call is not checked on the function uniswapV3SwapCallback in the contract named JBXBuybackDelegate

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Several tokens do not revert in case of failure and return false. If one of these tokens is used in MyBank, deposit will not revert if the transfer fails, and an attacker can call deposit for free...

PositionManager's moveLiquidity can set wrong deposit time and permanently freeze LP funds moved

Lines of code Vulnerability details moveLiquidity set new destination index LP entry deposit time to be equal to the source index deposit time, while destination bucket might have defaulted after that time. This is generally not correct as source bucket bankruptcy is controlled i.e. LP shares tha...

Mitigation of M-04: Mitigation error

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-04: Mitigation error Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings932 Comments Even though the original issue is mitigated, as the exchange through Uniswap V3 has been completely removed in favor of using...

Mitigation Confirmed for Mitigation of M-05: See comments

Mitigated issue M-05: Missing derivative limit and deposit availability checks will revert the whole stake function The issue was that stake calls deposit on each derivative without considering certain conditions under which some deposit might revert. There is an overlap between this issue and...

Loss of funds on deposit when totalShares > 0 && priorTokenBalance == 0

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Withdrawing one's shares may return far less tokens than one deposited. Proof of Concept Shares returned when depositing is calculated in StrategyBase.deposit as if totalShares == 0 newShares = amount; else uint256 priorTokenBalance = tokenBalance -...

Depositors risk losing funds through StrategyManager.depositIntoStrategyWithSignature()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The StrategyManager contract has two functions for depositing funds into Strategy contracts, one of them is depositIntoStrategyWithSignature which allows the caller to make a deposit and the new shares are credited to a specified staker. If the staker...

A Malicious validator can frontrun 32ETH deposit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Frontrunning by malicious validator actor to change the withdrawal credentials and gain the withdrawal ETH value. Proof of Concept A malicious validator can frontrun stake transaction with the same pubkey and deposit 1 ether for different withdrawal...

Strategy owner can steal staker funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The functions StrategyManager.depositIntoStrategy and StrategyManager.depositIntoStrategyWithSignature doesn't check if the msg.sender != strategy. Hence, a strategy owner can deposit into his own strategy and specify the staker to his own EOA account, a...

deposit will cause erros if totalShares is 1e9-1 or less

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact user funds will be stuck Proof of Concept User will not be able to withdraw for tokens that are less then 1e9-1 like usdt This is a warning in the code WARNING: In order to mitigate against inflation/donation attacks in the context of ERC4626, this...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #200 [1683080702977]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 200 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 KangarooVaultminDepositAmount should be a fairly high number to prevent 0 deposits or dust deposits that may affect the deposit/withdrawal process --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #883 [1682591277339]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 883 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: As such, if deposit or withdraw reverts for any derivative, stake and unstake will fail. This could cause stake and unstake to permanently revert for an prolonged period of time, as it is possible for deposit and...

No check for minPrice and maxPrice in the deposit() function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact No check for minPrice and maxPrice in the deposit function could lead to unexpected consequences Proof of Concept In the function deposit function deposit address payable privatePool, address nft, uint256 calldata tokenIds, uint256 minPrice, uint256...

In MuteBond.deposit(), users might deposit more LPs than they expected by a malicious user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users might deposit more LPs unexpectedly if a malicious user increases an epoch by frontrunning. Proof of Concept deposit has a maxbuy param to purchase all remaining amounts. function deposituint value, address depositor, bool maxbuy external returns...

Owner lowering max payout might break the MuteBonds contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details The maxPayout variable can be changed by the owner at any time. In case the owner lowers the maxPayout and the payoutTotal of the current epoch is greater than the new maxPayout the contract will be broken - no further deposit can be made, and most of the view...

Bond max-buyer might end up buying the max buy of the next epoch

Lines of code Vulnerability details The MuteBond.deposit function allows users to specify the amount of value they want to purchase bonds for or to set maxbuy to true. If maxbuy is set to true the amount specified in the value parameter is ignored and instead the maximum amount available for...

A malicious frontrunner can make the Mutebond contract broken when the owner decreases maxPayout

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Mutebond contract might stop working after the owner decreased maxPayout by a malicious frontrunner. Proof of Concept setMaxPayout can be used to reset maxPayout. function setMaxPayoutuint payout external requiremsg.sender == customTreasury.owner;...

MuteBond is susceptible to DOS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept Observe that if timeToTokens is called with locktime = 1 week, amount 52, it will return 0. function timeToTokensuint256 amount, uint256 locktime internal pure returns uint256 uint256 weektime = 1 weeks; uint256 maxlock = 52 weeks;...