First depositor can break minting of shares

Lines of code Vulnerability details Details The attack vector and impact is the same as TOB-YEARN-003, where users may not receive shares in exchange for their deposits if the total asset amount has been manipulated through a large “donation”. Proof of Concept Attacker deposits 2 wei so that it i...

DoS attack the system and steal all the users' funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact That exploit is possible because of the implementation of the deposit function of the SingleStrategyController contract. // Assumes approval to take amount has already been given by vault function deposituint256 amount external override onlyVault...

sendFundsToUser() does not verify that the user has deposited anything

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can request arbitrary amounts when requesting funds from the executor, because the deposit hash is not checked against actual deposits. The user can be the executor him/herself if they wish to rug-pull directly. Proof of Concept function...

Can deposit native token for free and steal funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The depositErc20 function allows setting tokenAddress = NATIVE and does not throw an error. No matter the amount chosen, the SafeERC20Upgradeable.safeTransferFromIERC20UpgradeabletokenAddress, sender, addressthis, amount; call will not revert because it...

Deposit Box Does Not Account for Fee On Transfer Tokens Causing the Bridge To Absorb the Fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function DepositBoxERC20.depositERC20 does not account for FoT Fee on Transfer tokens. FoT tokens charge a fee when transfer or transferFrom is called and it is subtracted from amount so the receiving address will receive less than amount of tokens...

Fee-on-transfer/deflationary tokens cause problems

Lines of code Vulnerability details Some ERC20 tokens, such as Tether USDT, allow for charging a fee any time transfer or transferFrom is called. If a contract does not allow for amounts to change after transfers, subsequent transfer operations based on the original amount will revert due to the...

[WP-M3] TurboRouter.sol#createSafeAndDeposit*() CreateSafeAndDeposit combo methods won't work as an allowance cannot be granted to a newly created Safe for deposit

Lines of code Vulnerability details The TurboRouter.soldeposit function can be used in a multicall together with approve and pullToken from PeripheryPayments to pull tokens from msg.sender and grant allowance for the ERC4626 Safe to call asset.safeTransferFrom with the msg.sender being the router...

first depositor of the insurance fund can drain the other depositors

Lines of code Vulnerability details in deposit, when the ratio totalSupply / balance is very high, the amount of the minted shares can round down to zero. Proof of Concept Alice is the first one to deposit to the insurance fund. she deposits 1 basic unit of vusd 10-6 dollar, therefore minting one...

ERC4626.mint() doesn't mint the correct amount

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The ERC4626.mint function doesn't mint the correct amount of tokens. Instead of minting amount number of tokens, it should mint shares number of tokens. Since the user doesn't receive the correct amount of tokens I'd rate this issue "HIGH". Proof of...

ERC4626 does not work with fee-on-transfer tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The docs/video say ERC4626.sol is in scope as its part of TurboSafe The ERC4626.deposit/mint functions do not work well with fee-on-transfer tokens as the amount variable is the pre-fee amount, including the fee, whereas the totalAssets do not include th...

TurboRouter: deposit(), mint(), createSafeAndDeposit() and createSafeAndDepositAndBoost() functions do not work

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The TurboRouter contract inherits from the ERC4626RouterBase contract. When the user calls the deposit, mint, createSafeAndDeposit and createSafeAndDepositAndBoost functions of the TurboRouter contract, the deposit and mint functions of the...

[WP-H14] ConvexStakingWrapper, StakingRewards Wrong implementation will send concur rewards to the wrong receiver

Lines of code Vulnerability details UserInfo storage user = userInfopidmsgSender; updatePoolpid; ifuser.amount 0 uint pending = user.amount pool.accConcurPerShare / concurShareMultiplier - user.rewardDebt; if pending 0 safeConcurTransferrecipient, pending; ConvexStakingWrapper, StakingRewards is...

Re-entrancy vulnerabilities

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function claimRewards in ConcurRewardPool should be re-entrancy protected or first nullify the reward before sending it, otherwise, if any token contains a transfer callback hook, users can claim the same rewards multiple times, by re-entering the functi...

Users’ staking rewards can get redeemed by other users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Can be medium or high: When a user deposits through ConvexStakingWrapper, the contract calls the MasterChef's deposit function and deposits to it with recipient = msg.sender, but the MasterChef actually updates the deposited amount of the ConvexStakingWrapper...

During stake or deposit, users would not be rewared the correct Concur token, when MasterChef has under-supply of it.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact During stake or deposit, users would not be transferred the correct Concur token, when MasterChef has under-supply of it. There is an assumption that MasterChef contract would own enough Concur tokens so as to distribute to users as reward, during deposi...

USDMPegRecovery does not account for fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Curve.fi pools charge fees when adding or removing liquidity. The only time fees are not applied are when withdrawals are done using removeliquidity. USDMPegRecovery keeps track of tokens deposited and withdrawn, but does not keep track of fees assessed on thes...

Owner can steal Concur rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Owner can steal Concur rewards by adding a depositor and inflating other depositors' assigned balance of the token within the contract. Thus, the owner-managed depositor can get most all but one wei of the created tokens. Tools Used Manual analysis...

Lack of access control in the parameterize function of proposal contracts

Handle shw Vulnerability details Impact Most of the proposal contracts have a parameterize function for setting the proposal parameters, and these functions are protected only by the notCurrent modifier. When the proposal is proposed through a lodgeProposal transaction, an attacker can front-run...

Lack of slippage protection on minting sNOTE from underlying assets.

Handle TomFrenchBlockchain Vulnerability details Impact Users minting sNOTE from ETH, WETH or NOTE can receive significantly less sNOTE than they expect. Minting from BPT is unaffected. Proof of Concept sNOTE allows users to deposit NOTE, ETH or WETH as a single-asset deposit into the NOTE-WETH...

Uninitialized RocketJoeStaking.lastRewardTimestamp can inflate rJoe supply

Handle cmichel Vulnerability details The RocketJoeStaking.lastRewardTimestamp is initialized to zero. Usually, this does not matter as updatePool is called before the first deposit and when joeSupply = joe.balanceOfaddressthis == 0, it is set to the current time. function updatePool public if...