Missing allowlist checks on tokens in CrossAnchorBridge could cause loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CrossAnchorBridge contract accepts any ERC20 token and transfers them to the wormhole bridge. There were allowlist checks on the tokens before, but they were commented out in this version for the audit. If a user transfers, for example, non-supported...

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...

Centralisation Risk: Admin Role of TokenManagerEth can Rug Pull All Eth from the Bridge

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a Centralisation risk of the bridge where the DEFAULTADMINROLE of TokenManagerEth.sol is able to modify the ERC20 token on the SChain to any arbitrary address. This would allow the admin role to change the address to one where they have infinite...

MarginAccount.sol - Asset transfer to insuranceFund is lost.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact MarginAccount.sol - Line 377, token asset is transferred into insuranceFund but not found any function to transfer asset out of insuranceFund. Proof of Concept Add any ERC20 token to Collateral list Call settleBadDebt Recommended Mitigation Steps Add...

Accounting for non-standard ERC20 fees

Handle Dravee Vulnerability details Impact Bad accounting in case of non-standard ERC20 tokens Proof of Concept Vault.sol 105: IERC20token.safeTransferFromfrom, addressthis, amount; 106: 107: balance += amount; Vault.sol 136: IERC20token.safeTransferFromfrom, addressthis, amount; 137: balance +=...

Unused ERC20 tokens are not refunded, and can be stolen by attacker

Handle WatchPug Vulnerability details Under certain circumstances, e.g. annualizedFee being minted to feeBeneficiary between the time user sent the transaction and the transaction being packed into the block and causing amounts of underlying tokens for each basketToken to decrease. It's possible ...

With protectedCall permission funds of other users can be stolen

Handle 0x0x0x Vulnerability details When the diamond has BasketFacet, then following attack is possible: 1- Create a new ERC20 token A with a lot of quantity 2- Lock the basket 3- Send MINAMOUNT many token A to the basket 4- Remove all tokens except token A 5- Unlock the basket 6- Call joinPool a...

Zap contract's redeem() function doesn't check which token the user wants to receive

Handle Ruhum Vulnerability details Impact In the redeem function, the user can pass a token address. That's the token they receive in return for the ibbtc they give back. Because of missing address checks the user can provide any possible ERC20 token here without the function reverting. Although...

Unchecked transferFrom call in Vesting

Handle loop Vulnerability details Vesting.sol makes use of the safeERC20 library to make transfer calls on the vestingToken as vestingToken does not seem to be a predetermined ERC20 token. There is however a transferFrom call on vestingToken which does not make use of the safeERC20 version. Impac...

approvalHandler.transferFrom(..) isn't safe

Handle pants Vulnerability details approvalHandler can be set by the admin to any ERC20 token. A popular possible token is USDT, for example, which the admin can use. Then ignoring transferFrom return value isn't safe - since USDT transferFrom doesn't revert on failure but returns false instead...

Rewards accumaulated can stay constant and oftern not increment

Handle moose-code Vulnerability details Impact rewardsPerToken.accumulated can stay constant while rewardsPerToken.lastUpdated is continually updated, leading to no actual rewards being distributed. I.e. No rewards accumulate. Proof of Concept Line 115, rewardsPerToken.accumulated could stay...

Security feature bypass

A security flaw in the 'owned' function of a smart contract implementation for RobotCoin RBTC, a tradeable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to hijack victim accounts and arbitrarily increase the digital supply of assets...

CVE-2021-34270

The CVE-2021-34270 entry concerns Doftcoin Token (an Ethereum ERC20 token) with an integer overflow in the mintToken function. The vulnerability is an arithmetic overflow in the token minting path, potentially allowing the owner to cause financial losses; exploitation details are not provided in ...

CVE-2021-33403

An integer overflow in the transfer function of a smart contract implementation for Lancer Token, an Ethereum ERC20 token, allows the owner to cause unexpected financial losses between two large accounts during a transaction...

CVE-2021-33403

The CVE concerns LNCToken (Lancer Token), an Ethereum ERC-20 token. The vulnerability is an integer overflow in the transfer function of the smart contract, which could allow the owner to cause unexpected financial losses between two large accounts during a transaction. The connected sources (inc...

CVE-2018-19830

The UBSexToken function of a smart contract implementation for Business Alliance Financial Circle BAFC, an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function is public by default and does not check the caller's identity...

Code injection

The ToOwner function of a smart contract implementation for Cryptbond Network CBN, an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function does not check the caller's identity...

Default credentials

The UBSexToken function of a smart contract implementation for Business Alliance Financial Circle BAFC, an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function is public by default and does not check the caller's identity...

CVE-2018-19834

The quaker function of a smart contract implementation for BOMBBA BOMB, an tradable Ethereum ERC20 token, allows attackers to change the owner of the contract, because the function does not check the caller's identity...

CVE-2018-17111

The onlyOwner modifier of a smart contract implementation for Coinlancer CL, an Ethereum ERC20 token, has a potential access control vulnerability. All contract users can access functions that use this onlyOwner modifier, because the comparison between msg.sender and owner is incorrect...