Wrong arithmetic operation upon filling a bid order, lead to lost amount of ether on user funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Functions GolomTrader.solfillBid... and GolomTrader.solfillCriteriaBid... used to fill a signed order Golom order.orderType = 1 or = 2 by the buyer after he approved GolomTrader contract some wETH. However, in case that the signed order is of type ERC1155 where...

Miscalculated payout to NFT sellers completing ERC1155 bids

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Payout to user fulfilling bid orders by selling their NFTs on ERC1155 will get incorrectly calculated. This will lead to eth getting stuck in the contract, and users not getting their advertised payout. Proof of Concept This whole bug takes place in...

Upgraded Q -> M from 268 [1659038665057]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 268 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: The protocol does not support fee on transfer and other weird tokens, e.g.: IERC20rewardToken.safeTransferFrommsg.sender, addressthis, amount; rewardTokenInforewardToken.queuedRewards += amount; --- The text was...

Auctioneer Cut calculated in different order of magnitude

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Auctioneer fee is calculated in different order of magnitude. Proof of Concept As your are defining auctioneerReward in 1e18 basis point being 1e18 100% you need to divide by 1e18 when calculating percentage. function setAuctioneerRewarduint128...

Accidentally cancel order

Lines of code Vulnerability details Accidentally cancel order Impact Some market maker's limit order might be accidentally cancelled, and has to be resubmitted again. If the user did not do this on purpose, without knowing the fact that the order has been cancelled, it may lead to unexpected...

Upgraded Q -> M from 270 [1657580270573]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 270 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 6.L- Admin config ProtocolFee and gasFee missing max amount check which can be used to take fund from user With PROTOCOLFEEBPS 10000 more than 100%, the exchange can steal user WETH who might approve max WETH...

The fee is not paid as intended for put orders

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact MEDIUM - functions of the protocol could be impacted For put options, the fees are not paid as intended. Proof of Concept poc0: fee on non-exercised put option poc0 shows that fee is applied for put option, even though the option was not exercised. poc1:...

Short position owner will loose funds when put option expired

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Fees are expected to be paid whenever an option is exercised as per the function comment on L235. However, the current protocol implementation also charges fees for expired put options. The owner of a short put option is subject to paying fees whenever t...

fee proportional to strike even for unexercised orders

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol takes a fee proportional to the order's strike. This happens during a withdraw: // transfer strike to owner if put is expired or call is exercised if order.isCall && isExercised || !order.isCall && !isExercised // send the fee to the admin/D...

Fee is being deducted when Put is expired and not when it is exercised.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Fee is being deducted when Put is expired and not when it is exercised in PuttyV2.sol. Comment section of the setFee function mentions "fee rate that is applied on exercise" which signifies that the fee amount is meant to be deducted from strike only whe...

Potential interests are not distributed fairly among the zcTokens holders, nor taken as a protocol fee, but will be frozen in the redeemer contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details function authRedeem address u, uint256 m, address f, address t, uint256 a public authorizedIMarketPlacemarketPlace.marketsu, m, 0 returns bool // Get the principal token for the given market IERC5095 pt = IERC5095IMarketPlacemarketPlace.marketsu, m, 0; // Make...

Fee on transfer tokens not supported

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Fee on transfer tokens would lead to sellers getting more PT than what the pool has received in underlying as the difference in balance is not accounted for, only the a input. This is also true for mintWithUnderlying as minters get more in relation to th...

Improper Upper Bound Definition on the Fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The feenominator does not have any upper or lower bounds. Values that are too large will lead to reversions in several critical functions or the platform user will lost all funds when paying the fee. Proof of Concept 1. Navigate to the following contract...

LiquidityReserve may break if underlying token is upgraded to have fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact One of the tokens supported by this project is USDC, which is an upgradeable contract, and the code specifically casts addresses to IERC20Upgradeable rather than to IERC20, so the intention is for the code to support upgrades. If USDC ever upgrades to ha...

Yield of LiquidityReserve can be stolen

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Using sandwich attacks and JIT Just-in-time liquidity, the yield of LiquidityReserve could be extracted for liquidity providers. Proof of Concept The yield of LiquidityReserve is distributed when a user calls instantUnstakeReserve in Staking. Then, in...

instantUnstake function can be frontrunned with fee increase

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact instantUnstake allows user to unstake their stakingToken for a fee paid to the liquidity providers. This fee could be changed up to 100% any moment by admin. Malicious admin could frontrun users instantUnstake transaction and set fee to any value using...

Inaccurate fee calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The equation in the calculateFee function has a high degree of inaccuracy Solidity use integers, when divide an uint256 for other uint256 the divition take the floor number and ignore the decimal part In example: a = 1999 ETH feenominator = 1000 the retu...

Call to lend() function can be frontrunned with fee increase

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious admin could frontrun users lend transaction anytime and set feenominator to any value using setFee and bigger fee than user expected. /// @notice sets the admin address /// @param a address of a new admin /// @return bool true if successful...

Fee Was Not Charged When Buying On Secondary Curve

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof-of-Concept Per the documentation, the admin and curator fees are charged when buying on the secondary curve. Whenever someone mints and burns tokens on the bonding curve, they need to pay some trading fees which is accrued in ETH Within the NibblVault.buy...

Some users can redeem more reserve tokens after curator redeems accumulated curator fee.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is possible for some users to redeem more reserved tokens if the curator redeems accummulated curator fee before their redeem action in the case of a boughtOut. This is possible because NibblVault.redeemCuratorFee sets feeAccruedCurator back to 0. So ...