Upgraded Q -> M from #366 [1670366212013]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 366 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 1. Not support fee-on-transfer tokens Every tokens of credit line will be transferred from lender to LineOfCredit first, then to borrower later. These 2-transfer steps will make the tax for some fee-on-transfer token...

Upgraded Q -> M from #38 [1670234424045]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 38 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L2. Pool selection for the compound is not restricted Compound function of AutoPxGmx contract is public and available for everyone. An attacker can create a custom pool with a higher fee value currently, on tests it...

The existence of the tokenID is not validated in distributeFees()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Turnstile contract has distributeFees function which the Canto team/smart contract utilizes to distribute the fees to the tokenID's for the smart contract that is registered through register function. The existence of the tokenID's are checked both in...

There is no re-register o re-assign function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no re-register or re-assign option for the smart contracts. Let's assume a smart contract is registered either through the register function with a new NFT minted or the assign function to an existing NFT. However, if somehow, the NFT is burned ...

fee loss in AutoPxGmx and AutoPxGlp and reward loss in AutoPxGlp by calling PirexRewards.claim(pxGmx/pxGpl, AutoPx*) directly which transfers rewards to AutoPx* pool without compound logic get executed and fee calculation logic and pxGmx wouldn't be executed for those rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function compound in AutoPxGmx and AutoPxGlp contracts is for compounding pxGLP and additionally pxGMX rewards. it works by calling PirexGmx.claimpx, this to collect the rewards of the vault and then swap the received amount to calculate the reward,...

PirexERC4626 and PirexGmx doesn't support erc20 tokens with fee on transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details PirexERC4626 and PirexGmx doesn't support erc20 tokens with fee on transfer Vulnerability details There are ERC20 tokens that charge fee for every transfer / transferFrom. Different functions assumes assumes that the received amount is the same as the transfer...

Lack of input validation to check whether the tokenId of the NFT exists or not - this lead to misallocation of fee earned

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the distributeFees function, there is no input validation to check whether the tokenId of the NFT exists or not. If a caller inputs tokenId that does not exist, the fee earned will be added to the balance of tokenId that does not exist. Although this...

AutoPxGmx.compound function can be directly called with a fee input value that is not the configured Uniswap pool fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Calling the following AutoPxGmx.withdraw and AutoPxGmx.redeem functions would execute compoundpoolFee, 1, 0, true, which uses the configured Uniswap pool fee as the fee input of the AutoPxGmx.compound function below to further call the...

User can redirect fees by using a proxy contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact For any given tx, the fees are sent to its recipient To. Anybody can register an address using the Turnstile contract. Thus, a user is able to create a proxy contract with which they execute other smart contracts. That way, the fees are sent to their own...

Witness Block Parsing DoS Vulnerability

Impact All lnd nodes before version v0.15.4 are vulnerable to a block parsing bug that can cause a node to enter a degraded state once encountered. In this degraded state, nodes can continue to make payments and forward HTLCs, and close out channels. Opening channels is prohibited, and also on...

CVE-2022-43142

A cross-site scripting XSS vulnerability in the add-fee.php component of Password Storage Application v1.0 allows attackers to execute arbitrary web scripts or HTML via a crafted payload injected into the cmddept parameter...

Password Storage Application 跨站脚本漏洞

Password Storage Application is a password storage application by Carlo Montero Personal Developer. A security vulnerability exists in Password Storage Application v1.0, which originates from a cross-site scripting XSS vulnerability in the component add-fee.php, which allows attackers to execute...

PT-2022-24948 · Unknown · Lightning Network Daemon

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions: Lightning Network Daemon lnd versions prior to 0.15.4 Description: The issue is related to a block parsing bug that can cause a node to enter a degraded state. In this state, nodes can continue to make payments and forward HTLCs, and close ou...

Upgraded Q -> M from #215 [1668468272191]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 215 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 7. No max fee is set on setFlashLoanFee function There is no max fee set. This allows a malicious owner to set a very high amount of flashloan fee , which allows the malicious admin to grief other users. He can also...

Direct theft of buyers ETH funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Most severe issue: A Seller or Fee recipient can steal ETH funds from the buyer when he is making a single or bulk execution. Direct theft of funds. Additional impacts that can be caused by these bugs: 1. Seller or Fee recipient can cause next in line...

Upgraded Q -> M from #403 [1668467487185]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 403 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 1. No upper limit check on flash loan fee No upper limit check on setFlashLoanFee. Although only admin can set this, human error can lead to higher percente swap, leading to excess swap and gas fee. Or admin can rug...

Upgraded Q -> M from #474 [1668467584757]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 474 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-01 Flashloan fee is not validated flashLoanFee is determined at LBFactory's constructor as; constructoraddress feeRecipient, uint256 flashLoanFee setFeeRecipientfeeRecipient; flashLoanFee = flashLoanFee; emit...

Upgraded Q -> M from #194 [1668467876517]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 194 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-04 Should be a upper-bound on Flash-loan fee There are 1 instances of this issue: File : = Recommended Mitigation There should be a upper bound of Flash-loan fee define in contract so that owner can't able to set f...

Reentrancy attack on fee transferring

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Description There is execute function in the Exchange smart contract. The function matches two orders, ensuring the validity of the match, transfers the order fees, etc. When transferring fees, the contract just makes a call to the...

LooksRareProxy is missing the fee mechanism, protocol may loss the revenue from fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LooksRareProxy is missing the fee mechanism, the protocol may lose revenue from the fee. Even if you intend to have a free fee, the fee mechanism should be implemented in case you need to enforce the fee in the future. Proof of Concept function execute...