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...

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 =...

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...

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...

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;...

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...

Incorrect fee splitting logic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The fee splitting logic does not properly attribute holder and creator rewards. By splitting fees from the total rather than incrementally, it distorts the proportional rewards earned over time. This could undermine the incentive structures and alignment...

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...

Missing gas fee limit

Lines of code Vulnerability details The use of .callvalue: balance"" does not limit the gas sent along with the Ether, potentially allowing all gas in the transaction to be used by the receiver. // Set a specific gas limit for the call if applicable uint256 gasLimit = someGasLimit; // Define...

funds stuck in crowdfund

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details: Details: in ETHCrowdfundBase the crowdfund deployer can choose to implement fee's that are given to a feeAdress with a certain percentage of the crowdfund ETH. the fee splitting is happening both in finalize: function finalizeuint96...

Users pay higher fee than intended

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Protocol mints incorrect depositAmount and depositShare to protocol. Such that reserveFee is higher than defined. Suppose following scenario: 1. Tranche 2 has 20% APR, has 5000 borrowed 2. Tranche 1 has 10% APR, has 10000 borrowed 3. ReserveFee is 10% 4...

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...

Minter can censor GATEKEEPER and mint uncollateralized for a prolonged period of time

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Ethena explicitly mentions their protection against a compromised minter, the mentioned maximum loss is $100.000. The protection against a compromised minter rests on the GATEKEEPER role which is a system running on AWS set to remove the minter if mints...

Single lender can game markets into unexpected states of delinquency

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Wildcat Markets allow for for a borrower to accept the risks they are willing to manage when agreeing to terms of uncollatoralised lending. Namely authorised borrowers will permit certain lenders and control certain market parameters like interest rate,...

Borrower escapes delinquency penalty if no intermittent action happens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Once the market goes below required reserves, it is marked as delinquent only if an updateState action happens. Actions like market.updateState, executeWithdrawal, deposit, etc. have to happen else the protocol remains unaware of the market's delinquency...

User can selectively turn on the fallback flag to take all ETH on the agent contract as layerzero fee refund

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact performFallbackCall can revert sliently when refundee is not capable of taking ETH refund from layerzero side Proof of Concept In RootBridgeAgent.sol when the has fall back toggle flag is on, the smart contract aim to perform a fallback call to notify th...

GHSA-HQ58-P9MV-338C CometBFT's default for `BlockParams.MaxBytes` consensus parameter may increase block times and affect consensus participation

Amulet Security Advisory for CometBFT: ASA-2023-002 Component: CometBFT Criticality: Low Affected versions: All Affected users: Validators, Chain Builders + Maintainers Summary A default configuration in CometBFT has been found to be large for common use cases, and may affect block times and...

CometBFT's default for `BlockParams.MaxBytes` consensus parameter may increase block times and affect consensus participation

Amulet Security Advisory for CometBFT: ASA-2023-002 Component: CometBFT Criticality: Low Affected versions: All Affected users: Validators, Chain Builders + Maintainers Summary A default configuration in CometBFT has been found to be large for common use cases, and may affect block times and...

CVE-2015-6964

MultiBit HD before 0.1.2 allows attackers to conduct bit-flipping attacks that insert unspendable Bitcoin addresses into the list that MultiBit uses to send fees to the developers. Attackers cannot realistically steal these fees for themselves. This occurs because there is no message authenticati...

Authentication flaw

MultiBit HD before 0.1.2 allows attackers to conduct bit-flipping attacks that insert unspendable Bitcoin addresses into the list that MultiBit uses to send fees to the developers. Attackers cannot realistically steal these fees for themselves. This occurs because there is no message authenticati...