Vault creator can prevent users from claiming staking rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Vault creator can prevent users from claiming rewards from the staking contract. This can boost his liquidity and lure depositors to stake vault tokens. He can present a high APY and low fee percentage which will incentivize stakers When the staking...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #664 [1675726078144]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 664 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-1 ERC20 Quest: withdrawFee function should only be able to be called once instead of multiple times Issue: The withdrawFee function can be called multiple times by admin after a quest ends, resulting in more than t...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #619 [1675724566035]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 619 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: The function withdrawRemainingTokens can be changed in a safer way to handle the withdraw from the owner and the protocol fee as well. This prevent risks allocated with the protocol fees. By the docs this function is...

SubprotocolRegistry accepts empty string as protocol name

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The input sanitization statements in SubprotocolRegistry.sol's register function are: function register bool ordered, bool primary, bool active, address nftAddress, string calldata name, uint96 fee external // ... if !ordered || primary || active revert...

User may charge any amount of fees when registering a subprotocol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When registering a subprotocol, the user may enter any amount of fees. There are no checks implemented. Proof of Concept The register function does not have a check for the fee. A limit may be imposed otherwise a user can register a subprotocol with any...

If no association type matched, user will end up paying fee for nothing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can add a new entry for the given subprotocol to the provided CID NFT. There are possible three different association types ordered, primary, active that can be used to model different types of associations between the CID NFT and subprotocol. For...

Some ERC20 tokens deduct a fee on transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Some ERC20 token implementations have a fee that is charged on each token transfer. This means that the transferred amount isn't exactly what the receiver will get. A call to ERC20token.transferrecipient, 100 with a fee-on-transfer of 5% will entitle the...

Fee can be transferred to the zero address while subprotocol registeration

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Everytime user register a new subprotocol to the registry contract, the registry contract transfer the fee to the cidFeeWallet from the registrar. There is missing vaildation that the transfer should not goes to zero address. If no address has been set f...

mint() function logic will break with fee-on-transfer(deflationary) tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact with deflationary token mint function never succeed Proof of Concept mint function checking if balanceAfter totalLiquidity revert CompleteUtilizationError; // next check is for the case when liquidity is borrowed but then was completely accrued if...

Malicious user can send the quest reward tokens to the protocol fee contract preventing users from claiming their rewards.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious user can take advantage of the function withdrawFee after the quest end time and successfuly send the quest reward tokens to the protocol fee contract preventing users from claiming their rewards. Proof of Concept Every receipt minted should...

Stripe: Fee discounts can be redeemed many times, resulting in unlimited fee-free transactions

A fee discount offer on Stripe transactions could be redeemed multiple times, resulting in unlimited fee-free transactions. The vulnerability allowed the attacker to call the /ajax/acceptfeediscountoffer endpoint multiple times, applying the discount each time. The impact was unlimited fee-free...

Timeswap Options has no reentry check and is providing a set of flashloan with no fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details high-flashloan-provider @timeswap Impact In the file /package/v2-option/TimeswapV2Option.sol, There are a range of functions that has no Reentry check. As a consequence, when the contract call back msg.sender, an attacker can then reeentry in his own callee...

The transferFeesFrom function does not check if the "from" address is the actual owner of the position before transferring the fees.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The code Doesn't check if the from address is the owner of the position before transferring the fees. If the from address is not the owner of the position, an attacker could potentially transfer fees from another user's position without their permission...

Fee on transfer based collateral is not considered.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It has following impacts. 1. backingManager would be transferred with lesser than deposits 2. Recorded liabilities will be more 3. collateral deposited into the RToken contract would be lesser than deposits Proof of Concept Any one can mint RToken by...

A transfer-on-fee token or a deflationary/rebasing token, causing the received amount to be less than the accounted amount. For instance, a deflationary tokens might charge a certain fee for every safetransfer() or safetransferFrom().

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ALice calls stakeamount = 100 deflationary Tokens. Because the token has a fee upon transfer, StRSR receives only 99 tokens and staked that amount to mint but user thought that receives 100 tokens . But reality token received for stRSR only 99 . Proof of...

function buyAndReduceDebt() spend more underlying token than user specified and also code doesn't check that swapFeeBips is less than BIPS_ONE and user can lose some of his underlying token balance that he gave protocol spending approval

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact user can specify fee recipient and fee amount to send to that recipient and it is calculated by amount swapFeeBips / BIPSONE but there is no check in the code to make sure swapFeeBips is less than BIPSONE and if user set wrong value by mistake or client...

Faulty fee handling in buyAndReduceDebt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When passing fee params to buyAndReduceDebt with swapFeeTo and swapFeeBips, the PaprController will try to send the underlying token on the following line: underlying.transferparams.swapFeeTo, amountIn params.swapFeeBips / BIPSONE; But in a normal state,...

xyk invariant does not hold after calls to buy() and sell()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Functions buyQuote and sellQuote are defined like this in Pair.sol: /// @notice The amount of base tokens required to buy a given amount of fractional tokens. /// @dev Calculated using the xyk invariant and a 30bps fee. /// @param outputAmount The amount...

Not supporting fee-on-transfer token as base token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Caviar protocol, all calculations in functions add, remove, buy, sell is done using token balance of Pair contract directly. In function add, it calculates and mints LP token to sender first before transferring baseToken in. function adduint256...

Wrong deposit amount in Trading.addToPosition()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users should deposit a full amount of addMargin but it deducts fee now. As a result, users will pay less funds than they should. Proof of Concept In addToPosition, users deposits addMargin - fee after the fee calculation. File:...