Upgraded Q -> M from #22 [1673008163388]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 22 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-01 ERC721Vestable.setVestingStart should check newVestingStartvestingEnd. function setVestingStartuint256 newVestingStart internal virtual //@Audit requirevestingEnd newVestingStart, "End must be greater than start"...

Upgraded Q -> M from #27 [1671522165760]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 27 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Dup of 45. The effect is severe enough IMO to warrant a med severity although I initially intepreted it as a spec mismatch. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #22 [1671528533640]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 22 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: NC-2 Return values of approve not checked --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #22 [1671528877220]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 22 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: minBidPrices is rounded down --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

A finding that cannot be disclosed at the moment

Lines of code Vulnerability details This finding couldn't be disclosed at the time when the contest was running. After consulting with CloudEllie, it was decided to create a stub report so the finding could be submitted after the contest is over. A checksum of the report:...

Upgraded Q -> M from #81 [1670783437328]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 81 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: After carefully reading all submissions related to the use of selfdestruct, I will change my stance on this kind of issue. Changing the severity back to Medium. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors...

Upgraded Q -> M from #508 [1670444214372]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 508 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 508 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #373 [1670018401792]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 373 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: N2. ETH not accumulated in previewAccumulatedETH supposed to have accumulated += ... Although it is an external view function, depending on its usages, it may present more issues to the callers. --- The text was...

Upgraded Q -> M from #205 [1669936745167]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 205 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 - No check if EOARepresentative or EOARepresentativeOfNodeRunner is an EOA or a smart contract Impact A smart contract can end up being assigned as a smartWalletRepresentative. Such smart contract might not have...

Upgraded Q -> M from #75 [1668466949988]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 75 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Line 237, beforeTokenTransferaddress0, account, id, amount; should be beforeTokenTransferaccount, address0, id, amount; --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #348 [1668468155840]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 348 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 Wrong parameter order inside beforeTokenTransfer in LBtoken::burn call should be beforeTokenTransferaccount, address0, id, amount; --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All...

Upgraded Q -> M from #205 [1668464751854]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 205 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 108 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from #471 [1668464969039]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 471 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: The whole report --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

1) THERE IS CONFLICT IN REQUIRE STATMENT. IN finalizeDeposit FUNCTION CHECKS require (msg.sender == l1Bridge, "mq"). IN bridgeMint FUNCTION IMPLEMENTATIONS onlyBridge Modifier CHECKS require(msg.sender == l2Bridge).

Lines of code Vulnerability details 1. Impact Let assume if we calling bridgeMint from finalizeDeposit function the msg.sender is l1bridge . if the msg.sender is not l1bridge can't run the finalizeDeposit but as per bridgeMint the msg.sender should be l2bridge. So it will cause the conflict . the...

Upgraded Q -> M from 133 [1667781432368]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 133 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> H from 486 [1667781140997]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 486 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from 407 [1667616784805]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 407 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> H from 502 [1667614581063]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 502 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> H from 149 [1667660267515]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 149 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> H from 262 [1667614992867]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 262 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...