Fee-on-transfer/rebasing tokens will have problems when swapping

Lines of code 110 Vulnerability details Uniswap v3 does not support rebasing or fee-on-transfer tokens so using these tokens with it will result funds getting stuck. With fee-on-transfer tokens, if the balance isn't checked, the wrong amount may be transferred out. With rebasing tokens, the...

Lack of input validation for ClosePositionParams.amountSwap results in theft of fund (premium + protocol fee))

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lack of input validation for ClosePositionParams.amountSwap results in theft of fund Proof of Concept ParticlePositionManager.sol hold two part of fund 1. the contract hold premium added by borrower 2. the contract hold protocol fee before protocol...

Underflow could happened when calculating Uniswap V3 position's fee growth and can cause operations to revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When operations need to calculate Uniswap V3 position's fee growth, it used similar function implemented by uniswap v3. However, according to this known issue : Uniswap/v3-core573. The contract is implicitly relies on underflow/overflow when calculating...

Fee-on-transfer/rebasing tokens will have problems when swapping

Lines of code 110 Vulnerability details Uniswap v3 does not support rebasing or fee-on-transfer tokens so using these tokens with it will result funds getting stuck. With fee-on-transfer tokens, if the balance isn't checked, the wrong amount may be transferred out. With rebasing tokens, the...

Contracts are vulnerable to fee-on-transfer accounting-related issues

Lines of code 359, 448, 509, 530, 42, 797, 162 Vulnerability details The functions below transfer funds from the caller to the receiver via transferFrom, but do not ensure that the actual number of tokens received is the same as the input amount to the transfer. If the token is a fee-on-transfer...

Missing onlyOwner Modifier Will Give Access To Any Malicious User To Change UnwrapFee Immediately

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any address can call the function changeUnwrapFee and modify or influence the unwrap fee, compromising the intended governance structure and allowing malicious users or entities to favourably adjust fees to their advantage for token unwrapping. Proof of...

Users can unwrap assets in batches and avoid paying fees to protocol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can unwrap their assets from The Ocean and evade paying fees to the protocol when the requested amount is smaller than the fee divisor. This happens due to a truncation of the result in the fee calculation. Proof of Concept This affects the...

Unwrapping function emits event with incorrect values.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The etherUnwrap function in the smart contract does not correctly emit the EtherUnwrap event. The issue arises when calculating and emitting the fee and transfer amounts. The current implementation deducts the fee, transfers the calculated amount, and...

Unrestricted Unwrap Fee Changes: Instability, Market Disruption, and Loss of Trust

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current changeUnwrapFee function in the Ocean smart contract allows the owner to change the unwrap fee divisor with no restrictions, leading to several negative impacts: 1. Unstable Unwrap Fees: Frequent changes in the divisor can cause instability a...

Fee on transfer tokens are not accounted for in any way

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Fee on transfer or other unique tokens are not properly accounted for. This could lead to wrong accounting within The Ocean and eventual losses for the protocol. Proof of Concept The Ocean doesn't keep track of its balances when a user is wrapping a toke...

Unwrap Fee Rounding Down: Revenue Loss, User Unfairness, and Reduced Confidence

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The issue with the unwrap fee rounding down can have several detrimental impacts on the Ocean protocol: 1. Revenue Loss: Due to rounding down, the contract loses out on potential unwrap fees, particularly for smaller unwrap amounts. This can significantl...

Contracts are vulnerable to fee-on-transfer accounting-related issues

Lines of code 359, 448, 509, 530, 42, 797, 162 Vulnerability details The functions below transfer funds from the caller to the receiver via transferFrom, but do not ensure that the actual number of tokens received is the same as the input amount to the transfer. If the token is a fee-on-transfer...

Contracts are vulnerable to fee-on-transfer accounting-related issues

Lines of code 359, 448, 509, 530, 42, 797, 162 Vulnerability details Impact The functions below transfer funds from the caller to the receiver via transferFrom, but do not ensure that the actual number of tokens received is the same as the input amount to the transfer. If the token is a...

Fee-on-transfer/rebasing tokens will have problems when swapping

Lines of code 110 Vulnerability details Impact Uniswap v3 does not support rebasing or fee-on-transfer tokens so using these tokens with it will result funds getting stuck. With fee-on-transfer tokens, if the balance isn't checked, the wrong amount may be transferred out. With rebasing tokens, th...

Improper validation can cause fee error and loss of funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the amount is equal to zero the fee will be equal to zero, there is no check for amount should not be equal to zero the condition passes, it will fetch bondingCurve address then calcutes the price from LinearBondindCurve.sol,fee = priceForOne amount...

Lost fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Buyers do not get any split of the fees. It is instead to be distributed to holders. But holder splits on successive buys are partially lost to the contract and cannot be recovered. Proof of concept The buyer's rewardsLastClaimedValueidmsg.sender is...

platform will get 40 percent of fee if fee are below 100

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact PlatForm will get 40 percent of fee when price is below 100 cause of rounding error Proof of Concept uint256 public constant HOLDERCUTBPS = 3300; // 33% uint256 public constant CREATORCUTBPS = 3300; // 33% protocol implement that holder and creator will...

there is rounding error when price is below 10

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact fee will be zero when price is below in get minting price Proof of Concept uint256 public constant NFTFEEBPS = 1000; function getNFTMintingPriceuint256 id, uint256 amount public view returns uint256 fee address bondingCurve = shareDataid.bondingCurve;...

Sandwich attack on buy()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function Market:buy does not check or take in a minimum buy amount. This makes users' funds vulnerable to sandwich attacks. buy will increase shareDataid.tokenCount, and thus change the exchange rate of share price. price, fee =...

The user has the ability to bypass a fee claim protection for their own benefit while purchasing tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can bypass a fee claim protection for his own benefit by making multiple purchases instead of one, and as the result claim a fee part by part. Due to code documentation: The reward calculation has to use the old rewards value pre fee-split to not...