Mitigation of M-11: Issue not mitigated, mitigation error

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-11: Issue not mitigated, mitigation error Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings152 Comments Even though the sponsor followed the warden's recommendation in issue M-11, I don't think the proposed change properly...

Mitigation Confirmed for Mitigation of H-06: Issue mitigated with error

Mitigated issue H-06: WstEth derivative assumes a 1=1 peg of stETH to ETH. The issue was that WstEth.withdraw and WstEth.ethPerDerivative assume a perfect peg between stETH and ETH, which may cause the slippage to be inaccurately evaluated. Mitigation review The issue has been mitigated by using...

Assuming a 1-1 peg of Liquid Staked Tokens like stETH and rETH to ETH is dangerous

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The price of ETH staking derivatives may not be pegged 1-1 to ETH which affect staking conditions. Proof of Concept To stake eth, a user calls depositBeaconChainETH. The amount parameter is passed into the addShares function. In addShares, the amount...

Staker can avoid ETH slash by front run slashQueuedWithdrawal() with completeQueuedWithdrawal()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious staker can avoid the service's slash on its restaked ETH shares. Proof of Concept This issue is similar to Staker can avoid ETH slash by front run slashShares with verifyOvercommittedStake, but with a different logic. When a service/middleware...

The length of proofs.slotProof is not checked in the verifyWithdrawalProofs function, allowing a malicious EigenPod Owner to be issued only shares via StrategyManager and withdraw all their money

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Below is a portion of the verifyAndProcessWithdrawal function. // Verifying the withdrawal as well as the slot BeaconChainProofs.verifyWithdrawalProofsbeaconStateRoot, withdrawalProofs, withdrawalFields; // Verifying the validator fields, specifically th...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #883 [1682591284215]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 883 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: This could cause stake and unstake to permanently revert for an prolonged period of time, as it is possible for deposit and withdraw to revert due to unchecked external conditions: Reth The rocket pool DAO can disabl...

Challenger incentives can be inflated with external transfers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function notifyChallengeSucceeded calculates the volume of ZCHF to be repaid, which is then used to calculate the reward for the challenger. The challenger can however artificially inflate this value. A challenger can start a challenge on an...

InitialETHCrowdfund.batchContributeFor() doesn't refund for failed contributes

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact InitialETHCrowdfund.batchContributeFor doesn't refund for failed contributes when args.revertOnFailure is false. The funds will be locked in the initial crowdfund contract, so it should be refunded. Proof of Concept InitialETHCrowdfund.batchContributeFor...

OperatorProposal._executeOperation() should refund excess ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are excess ETH in OperatorProposal.executeOperation, and it should be refunded. Proof of Concept OperatorProposal.executeOperation runs data.operator.execute with data.operatorValue of ETH. data.operator.execute value: data.operatorValue...

Users wouldn't refund from the lost ETH crowdfunds due to the lack of ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After the ETH crowdfunds are lost, contributors wouldn't refund their funds because the crowdfunds contract doesn't have enough ETH balance. Proof of Concept The core flaw is calculateRefundAmount might return more refund amount than the original...

InitialETHCrowdfund + ReraiseETHCrowdfund: batchContributeFor function may not refund ETH which leads to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This vulnerability exists in both the InitialETHCrowdfund and ReraiseETHCrowdfund contracts in exactly the same way. I will continue this report by explaining the issue in only one contract. The mitigation section however contains the fix for both...

OperatorProposal.sol: Leftover ETH is not refunded to the msg.sender

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The OperatorProposal contract is a type of proposal that allows to execute operations on contracts that implement the IOperator interface. Upon execution of the proposal it might be necessary that the executor provides ETH. This is true especially when...

sfrxETH.ethPerDerivative is incorrect, leading to incorrect minting amount of safETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details SafeETH.stake allows users to stake ETH and be minted an amount of safETH that corresponds to the ETH value of the derivatives that resulted from their deposit. The minting amount is based on: preDepositPrice, which is a function of the total safETH minted and...

withdraw function of WstEth derivative contract probably sends wrong ETH amount back to owner contract/user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Sends the wrong amount of ETH back to owner contract/user. In most cases, probably way too much, it sends the entire contract ETH balance. All the other calculations in the withdraw function seem correct, from what can be seen, but, as is the case with...

deposit function of WstEth not working correctly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The deposit function doesnt seem to work at all, or correctly at all. Its missing some code, etc. Please see my natspec notes below for more clarity: Apologies, this is 10mins before contest ends, so I'm just going to copy my NatSpec notes here: function...

Potential reentrancy in unstake function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact there is a potential reentrancy vulnerability in the unstake function. After the user's safETH tokens are burned, the function sends ETH to the user's address using the call method. If the receiving address is a contract and it has a fallback function th...

LiquidityPool.executePerpOrders(): dangerous payable function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract LiquidityPool use a dangerous payable function executePerpOrders In this function, users can send ETH mistakenly. We should check the msg.value is 0 or not to void this issue. Proof of Concept function executePerpOrdersbytes calldata...

EVM Elliptic Curve Recovery Discrepancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Ecrecover.yul file meant to simulate the ecrecover mechanism as executed by traditional ETH 1.0 consensus mechanisms is incorrect. In detail, it does not conform to the "Homestead" update which introduced an upper-bound check for s values of an r, s,...

Malicious or hacked admin can steal all ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In L2EthToken.sol we have transferFromTo It is possible malicious or hacked admin to steal the ETH. Proof of Concept As can be seen from the code snippet below, nothing can stop malicious or hacked admin to steal all ETH. He can use address from and send...

Not having enough ETH may cause the transaction to fail

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The transaction will fail due to not having enough ETH. Proof of Concept When the proposal is executed, the protocol will call the function DAO.execute.The DAO protocol also supports sending ETH to external contract as the following code. bool success,...