Galaxy Technologies GNS3 安全漏洞

Galaxy Technologies GNS3 is a suite of network software emulators from Galaxy Technologies, USA. A security vulnerability exists in Galaxy Technologies GNS3 dynamips version 0.2.21, which originates from the use of uninitialized variables in the function genethrecv...

Expert Analysis Reveals Cryptographic Weaknesses in Threema Messaging App

A comprehensive analysis of the cryptographic protocols used in the Swiss encrypted messaging application Threema has revealed a number of loopholes that could be exploited to break authentication protections and even recover users' private keys. The seven attacks span three different threat...

Any user which holds Raes tokens can infinitely freeze NFT in OptimisticListingSeaport

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description OptimisticListingSeaport exposes propose method to create new proposal, and rejectProposal to remove a listing in proposal stage. In propose, proposer commits a certain amount of collateral: // Sets collateral amount to pending balances for withdraw...

MISSING HANDLE FOR DIRECT SEND OF TOKEN

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current implementation of the protocol does not handle situations when tokens are sent directly to the pair contract. Tokens directly send to the contract can affect the calculation of baseTokenReserves which affect buyQuoute and sellQuoute. Below is...

GroupBuy can be drained of all ETH.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description purchase in GroupBuy faciilitates the purchasing of an NFT after enough contributions were gathered. Another report titled "Attacker can steal the amount collected so far in the GroupBuy for NFT purchase" describes a high impact bug in purchase. It ...

contribute() locks too much ETH from the user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the contribute function of the GroupBuy contract, even if the filledQuantity is less than quantity, all the ETH provided by the user is locked in the contract, and the user can only call claim to get it back after purchasing NFT or Pool expires, which...

User can provide malicious _market in GroupBuy.purchase to steal funds or NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The argument market of GroupBuy.purchase is not validated. The following call is directly performed on it: address vault = IMarketBuyermarket.executevalue: pricepurchaseOrder; Then, it is checked that the returned address owns the NFT: if...

GroupBuy does not check return value of call

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Both usages of call do not check if the transfer of ETH was succesful: payablemsg.sender.callvalue: contribution""; ... payablemsg.sender.callvalue: balance""; This can become very problematic when the recipient is a smart contract that reverts for...

Lack of access control for sweepToken, refundETH, unwrapWETH9 in Router.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lack of access control for sweepToken, refundETH, unwrapWETH9 in Router.sol, any WETH token, ETH and ERC20 sent to Router.sol is lost and claimable to anyone. Proof of Concept the function unwrapWETH9 and sweepToken and refundETH has no access control an...

wrong configuration can lock eth in LPDA contract forever

Lines of code Vulnerability details When creating an LPDA auction there are some sanity checks of the values used for the auction. But there is no check that the auction will not cause the price calculation to underflow after a while. This calculation of the price can underflow in getPrice in...

Loss of ETH for NFT buyers in LPDA contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The buy function of LPDA sale contract can be invoked with 0 as the input value and 0 ETH as the sent valuemsg.value = 0. The buy function automatically ends the sale when newId == sale.finalId and distributes ETH to feeReceiver and saleReceiver. Since t...

Malicious feeReceiver or saleReceiver can steal the user's refund ETH by calling the buy function multiple times in LPDA

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LPDA contract, the fee is transfered to feeReceiver and the totalSale to saleReceiver when newId == temp.finalId, meaning that the amount of tokens that were minted has been reached. However, the call to the internal end function only emits an eve...

Missing msg.value when executing the cross-chain request

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the cross-chain request will not support smart contract that requires ETH payment in destination chain on execution side. Proof of Concept When a user relayers call and performs a cross-chain request, the executor needs to execute the request in the...

Upgraded Q -> M from #265 [1669939411439]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 265 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: ETH not updated in internal accounting of giant pools Giant pools have a feature of bringing ETH back to the giant pools from the vaults. The received ETH in not updated in internal accounting and therefore cannot be...

[ZZ-004] During the deprecation period where both .eth registrar controllers are active, a crafted hack can be launched and cause the same malicious consequences of [ZZ-001] even if [ZZ-001] is properly fixed

Severity: High Status: Has not been reported Description, Specifically, according to the documentation, there will be a deprecation period that two types of .eth registrar controllers are active. Names can be registered as normal using the current .eth registrar controller. However, the new .eth...

[M2] It is possible to accidentally send ETH to an invalid token Id

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ​ ETH can be either loss or stolen PoC The function distributeFees is not checking if the tokenId is valid. That means that ETH can be sent to non-minted token. In case tokenId is a big number this ETH will be lost. If the id is not so big someone can mi...

NameWrapper: one can renew to DoS a Name

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone with enough eth can make a name impossible to be used anymore Proof of Concept Below is a snippet of the proof of concept. The whole code can be found in this gist. And how to run test is in the comment in the gist. This proof of concept...

ETH can get stuck (and possibly be stolen as well).

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Turnstile contract contains a distributeFees function which can only be called by owner to assign and distribute fee for a tokenId. However the function does not validates the tokenId input value. So it is possible for the owner to provide any uint25...

Multi reentrancy issues leveragin on _distributeETHRewardsToUserForToken method

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Multiple reentrancy issues mainly trigger by a low call ETH transfer. Proof of Concept Everytime you use the distributeETHRewardsToUserForToken method on SyndicateRewardsProcessor.solL67 there are many reentrancy opportunities for an attacker. For exampl...

Medium: Attacker may withdraw arbitrary amount from smart wallet, even if state checks would not normally allow it

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description withdrawETHForKnot in LiquidStakingManager suffers from reentrancy attack. function withdrawETHForKnotaddress recipient, bytes calldata blsPublicKeyOfKnot external requirerecipient != address0, "Zero address";...