Liquidation is not possible if trader blacklisted from blacklistable ERC20 token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a trader is blacklisted from a blacklistable ERC20 token while has an open position, it may not be possible to liquidate the position. Proof of Concept When liquidate position, it will eventually calculate the amount of token that need to be send to...

Unsafe use of transfer()/transferFrom() with IERC20

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Some tokens do not implement the ERC20 standard properly but are still accepted by most code that accepts ERC20 tokens. For example Tether USDT's transfer and transferFrom functions on L1 do not return booleans as the specification...

Unsafe use of transfer()/transferFrom() with IERC20

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Some tokens do not implement the ERC20 standard properly but are still accepted by most code that accepts ERC20 tokens. For example Tether USDT's transfer and transferFrom functions on L1 do not return booleans as the specification...

OverInflation or OverDeflation of Value of ERC20 tokens with unequal Wrap and Unwrap Token Decimal

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to wrong parameter arrangement of convertDecimals... function call during the course of wrap and unwrap of erc20 token function call, OverInflation or OverDeflation of Value of ERC20 tokens with unequal Wrap and Unwrap Token Decimal which would cause...

Lack of access control for mint/burn functions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The mint and burn functions allow any caller to mint and burn tokens without restrictions. This could enable malicious actors to arbitrarily inflate or reduce the token supply. An attacker could continuously mint new tokens, effectively devaluing all...

Reentrancy in Token Transfers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The mint and burn functions perform ERC20 token transfers without implementing a reentrancy guard. This allows malicious approving contracts to call back into these functions during a transaction and manipulate state. An attacker could steal all approved...

Creator can earn holder fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Creator can earn creator and holder as well. Proof of Concept In market.sol contract there is a buy function which cannot be used by creator of share. requireshareDataid.creator != msg.sender, "Creator cannot buy"; However, it's still possible for creato...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #221 [1699029747725]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 221 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-02 Handling missing for case where ERC20 token has decimal 18 in CamelotRelayer & UniV3Relayer oracles Description In the constructor token decimals of an ERC20 is assumed to be = 18 which can be wrong for some...

Vulnerability in rescueTokens and _beforeTokenTransfer Functions Allows Unrestricted Transfer to Contracts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The rescueTokens function in the provided Solidity contract allows the contract owner to transfer ERC20 tokens to any address, and the beforeTokenTransfer hook allows transfers involving addresses with the FULLRESTRICTEDSTAKERROLE. However, both function...

Tokens having Fee-On-Transfer are not considered which will make the protocol in retaining less value than expected.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The balance of the custodian Addresses will be smaller than what is expected, making the protocol fail to maintain the delta neutral position. Proof of Concept The function EthenaMinting.sol/transferCollateral is sending the tokens using safeTransferFrom...

Unchecked return value when calling ERC20's transfer function inside withdraw function of USDeSilo.sol. It is unsafe transfer of ERC20 tokens.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary In withdraw function of USDeSilo.sol there is one call calling ERC20 transfer function on USDe token. And it's return value neither checked nor safeTransfer of SafeERC20 used . So whenever transfer fails then it will not revert. And result in wrong...

There is no check for collateral token in mint matches same in withdraw

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact While we understand that usde is the base token here, we see that on minting used token you would need to transfer some tokens to the contract and get some used minted to you and on redemption get usde burnt to get a token sent back to you. The implicati...

USER WILL SEND TRANSACTION GAS WHICH IS ONLY ENOUGH TO EXECUTE StakedUSDeV2.unstake FUNCTION SUCCESFULLY BUT NOT ENOUGH TO FULLY EXECUTE THE silo.withdraw THUS LOSING ALL USER FUNDS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The StakedUSDeV2.unstake function is used to claim the staking amount after the cooldown period has finished. The unstake function will reset the userCooldown.cooldownEnd and userCooldown.underlyingAmount parameters to 0 for the msg.sender once the cool...

Vulnerability in in rescueTokens and _beforeTokenTransfer Functions Allows Self-Transfer of ERC20 Tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The rescueTokens function and the beforeTokenTransfer hook in the provided Solidity contract lack checks to ensure that the destination address is not the same as the sender from. This oversight can result in tokens being transferred to the same address,...

Circumvention of soft staking restrictions in StakedUSDeV2 through indirect ERC20 token transfers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The StakedUSDeV2 in the Ethena protocol is designed to allow users to stake USDe tokens and earn rewards. The protocol includes roles and restrictions to manage the staking process, such as SOFTRESTRICTEDSTAKERROLE and FULLRESTRICTEDSTAKERROLE. However,...

Missing check to avoid zero transfer revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Cannot deploy market with originationFeeAmount == 0 for ERC20 asset which reverts on zero amount transfers. Proof of concept In deployMarket the following is executed: if originationFeeAsset != address0 originationFeeAsset.safeTransferFromborrower,...

ERC20 tokens can be incorrectly burnt because of insufficient validation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ERC20 tokens are incorrectly burnt. Proof of Concept In the file WildcatSanctionsEscrow.sol there is a constructor function: constructor sentinel = msg.sender; borrower, account, asset = WildcatSanctionsSentinelsentinel.tmpEscrowParams; Let's suppose thi...

Deploying a market with a non-ERC20 asset can cause incorrect interaction with asset

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The market contract may expect certain ERC20 functions to be present and behave in a specific way. If the asset contract does not adhere to the ERC20 standard, the market may behave unexpectedly, resulting in incorrect token balances, pricing, or other...

Sanction Bypass Through Transferring to another account

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Wildcat protocol provides lending with lender backed collateral considered as reserves and the ratio must be upheld by the borrower. WildcatMarketTokens are provided to lenders in return for their base assets, these tokens are ERC20 meaning tokens can be...

[ADRIRO-NEW-M-03] Safe approval could lead to a denial of service in VotiumStrategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The introduction of the SafeERC20 wrapper may lead to an accidental denial of service due to how the safeApprove function works internally. Impact The updated codebase uses the SafeERC20 wrapper provided by the OpenZeppelin contracts library to handle...