CVE-2023-42449 Malicious head initialiser can extract PTs from control of Hydra scripts, leading to locked participant commits or spoofed commits

Hydra is the two-layer scalability solution for Cardano. Prior to version 0.13.0, it is possible for a malicious head initializer to extract one or more PTs for the head they are initializing due to incorrect data validation logic in the head token minting policy which then results in an flawed...

CVE-2023-42449 Malicious head initialiser can extract PTs from control of Hydra scripts, leading to locked participant commits or spoofed commits

Hydra is the two-layer scalability solution for Cardano. Prior to version 0.13.0, it is possible for a malicious head initializer to extract one or more PTs for the head they are initializing due to incorrect data validation logic in the head token minting policy which then results in an flawed...

CVE-2023-38701

CVE-2023-38701 (Hydra) affects Hydra’s head protocol on Cardano. Before v0.12.0, the commit validator and the initial validator contain a flawed check when the ViaAbort redeemer is used, allowing any user to arbitrarily spend UTxOs at the validator. This enables an attacker to steal funds users c...

Improper Reentrancy Checks

Vyper vulnerable to Improper Reentrancy Checks. The vulnerability is due to improperly handling the reentrancy at runtime. This can be exploited by the attacker where a malicious contract can repeatedly call a vulnerable contract leading to unexpected behavior or loss of funds...

The number of ticks is incorrectly fixed and is not equal to liquidityPerTick, resulting in low fund utilization.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the readme, it states the goal after activeIndex is reconstructed is: Instead of depositing half of the assets into each of the 2 ticks above and below, this has been parameterized, allowing to change asset distribution in case of high volatility. But...

getActiveTickIndex implementation error

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The implementation of getActiveTickIndex is wrong, and the searched ticks do not meet expectations, causing funds to be incorrectly allocated to edge ticks, and there is basically no staking income. Proof of Concept // if base token is token0, ticks abov...

coloradoenterprisefund.org Cross Site Scripting vulnerability OBB-3655435

Following the coordinated and responsible vulnerability disclosure guidelines of the ISO 29147 standard, Open Bug Bounty has: a. verified the vulnerability and confirmed its existence; b. notified the website operator about its existence. Technical details of the vulnerability are currently hidde...

Stealing extra mint fund by applying reentrancy attack on _execute with calling approve() again due to external call before crucial state update

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact By applying reentrancy attack involving the function mintIfThresholdMet, an user can steal extra amount of mint fund. Proof of Concept The functions mintIfThresholdMet make external mint call prior to updating the txnHashToTransaction state. If the real...

In the event of a fall in the price of USDY, the withdrawal of funds for the user may be blocked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a wrap function called by users to wrap their USDY tokens . In the future, to withdraw tokens, the user calls the unwrap function . However, in the unwrap function, the user can have more funds in case the price of USDY falls. Based on the case...

Rounding in the unwrap function in rUSDY may cause fund loss for users.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Rouding with BPSDENOMINATOR in function unwrap in rUSDY.sol may cause users to be transfered back less than expected USDY. POC The rUSDY.sol contract provides a way to wrap an amount of USDY as shares in order to gain profit in rUSDY. This is done throug...

Lack of Input Validation and Error Handling

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the slashTranscoder function, the parameters slashAmount and finderFee are directly used for computation without any validity checks. This design overlooks several key issues: There's no check to see if slashAmount or finderFee are within logical...

Malicious user can drain the reserve during swaping and withdrawal

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A malicious user can drain pool reserves by calling the swapGivenInputAmount... function during swapping and also during withdrawal by calling withdrawGivenOutputAmount... and withdrawGivenInputAmount... during withdrawal leading to a loss of funds. Proo...

Use of slot0 to get sqrtPriceLimitX96 can lead to price manipulation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contracts functions have used UniswapV3.slot0 to get the value of sqrtPriceX96 which it use to perform the swap, however the sqrtPriceX96 gotten from Uniswap.slot0 is the most recent data point and can be manipulated easily via MEV bots & Flashloans...

INCORRECT ACCESS CONTROL

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Access control plays an important role in segregation of privileges in smart contracts and other applications. If this is misconfigured or not properly validated on sensitive functions, it may lead to loss of funds, tokens and in some cases compromise of...

the check in checkExpectedBalances only allows 2% slippage, which could be insufficient in volatile markets and lock user funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This would cause the check to fail and revert the transaction, locking the user's funds Proof of Concept In volatile markets, the price could move more than 2% between when the user sends the transactions and when it gets mined. This would cause the chec...

Reentrancy vulnerability in Singularity.execute

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This vulnerability could allow an attacker to withdraw funds from the Singularity contract. This could result in a loss of funds for the user. Proof of Concept The Singularity.execute function has external calls inside a loop. This could potentially lead...

Reentrancy vulnerability in SGLLendingCommon._removeCollateral

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This vulnerability could allow an attacker to withdraw collateral from the SGLLendingCommon contract without actually removing it. This could result in a loss of funds for the lender. Proof of Concept The SGLLendingCommon.removeCollateral function is...

Reentrancy vulnerability in BigBang.execute

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This vulnerability could allow an attacker to withdraw funds from the BigBang contract. This could result in a loss of funds for the user. Proof of Concept The BigBang.execute function has external calls inside a loop. This could potentially lead to...

Loss of Funds when user wants to repay debt and underflow in _repay () function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no check for if userBorrowPartto is greater than or equal to part before subtraction which can lead to loss of funds for user or underflow, incase a user inputs more amount than the user is in debt for. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to a...

The amount of debt removed during liquidation may be worth more than the account's collateral

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract decreases user's debts but may not take the full worth in collateral from the user, leading to the contract losing potential funds from the missing collateral. Proof of concept During the liquidate function call, the function...