CommunityIssuance.sol – Stability pool can manipulate time stamps with the fund function to issue more oath than appropriate.

Lines of code Vulnerability details If lastDistributionTime is set to a date in the future, it would allow the issueOath function to continue to mint tokens even after it should have stopped. This is because the if statement in issueOath checks whether the current time is greater than...

Governance can cap the outflow of funds significantly preventing user redemptions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Reserve protocol always intends to allows free outflow of rToken collaterals. The redemption of rToken is allowed even when the protocol is paused. A Throttle mechanism is in place to just limit the outflow of funds from the contract. However the...

Any user can drain the entire reward fund in MultiRewardStaking due to incorrect calculation of supplierDelta

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reward deltaIndex in accrueRewards is multiplied by 10decimals but eventually divided by rewards.ONE which is equal to 10IERC20MetadataaddressrewardToken.decimals in accrueUser. If the number of decimals in MultiRewardEscrow share token differs from the...

Inflation attacks with virtual shares and assets

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the BaseAdapter is empty. Someone can frontrun a user to steal his funds by an inflation attack. Senario Lets say Alice wants to deposit 1 token with decimal 18, so 1e18 units to the vault calling deposit. This is how the attack would unfold. The...

RewardTokens can be locked in MultiRewardStaking contract when the rewardsEndTimestamp of the rewardsTokens are different.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact To claim reward tokens from the MultiRewardStaking contract deployed, a user must call claimRewardsaddress user, IERC20 memory rewardsTokens. The rewardsTokens array is populated with getAllRewardsTokens which returns all the reward Tokens the...

_squeezeDrips() passed the amount argument in place of amtPerSec for the _addDeltaRange, causing either underflow or the sender losing lots of fund!

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. squeezeDrips passes the amount argument in place of amtPerSec for its callee addDeltaRange in the following line addDeltaRangestate, cycleStart, cycleStart + 1, -int256amt AMTPERSECMULTIPLIER; The last...

int128 cast underflow in _receiveDripsResult()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In receiveDripsResult, the type cast of uint128 could underflow, and result in wrong receivedAmt. The impacts could be: wrong amount being transferred to users and drain the protocol fund inaccurate transfer amount, some users lose fund and some receive...

Critical Vulnerability exposed Reentrancy attack allowing unlimited Fund Withdrawals.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function register where it transfers a fixed amount of $NOTE tokens 100 $NOTE to the cidFeeWallet address without checking the reentrancy status. An attacker can repeatedly call this function to drain the contract balance...

Precision loss in the invariant function can lead to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can steal the funds without affecting the invariant. Proof of Concept We can say the function Pair.invariant is the heart of the protocol. All the malicious trades should be prevented by this function. Pair.sol 52: /// @inheritdoc IPair 53:...

withdrawFee() can be called indefinitely

Lines of code Vulnerability details The function withdrawFee does not account whether the fees have already been collected or not, therefore it can be called multiple times or even indefinitely, until the contract balance reaches zero. All funds will be transferred to the protocolFeeRecipient, bu...

withdraw() function uses faulty burn() function for transfer and it has no access control implemented.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The withdraw function has no access control implemented and can be called by anyone. It also uses the burn function to transfer funds. A Malicious actor can withdraw the balance of Lendgine.sol. Proof of Concept Alice a malicious actor uses a contract to...

driverID can make same userID registered under different different driverID's leading to loss of funds and ultimately the trust of people.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact driverID can make same userID registered under different different driverID's leading to loss of funds and ultimately the trust of people. Proof of Concept In contract dripsHub their is no mechanism to check a user already registered under driverID or no...

Using V2-Pool, user can loose money after minting, then burn due to duration calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users loose money over time after mint using V2-Pool due to the protocol duration calculation. The current duration calculation is calculated from now to maturity. So when the user mint, then burn the liquidity, with time the amount of short he get is...

Small amounts of funds can be stolen during recollateralization

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This is similar to the "high" vulnerability I submitted but shows a similar exploit can be done if a user isn't a whale, stealing a smaller amount of funds. This is potentially a "high" risk depending on how easy you think execution is. I think it's...

function withdraw() in StRSR won't update contract state (totalDrafts) in all cases which can cause wrong fund distribution and fund stucking in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function withdraw complete an account's unstaking. it transfers user draft withdrawals and updates totalDrafts. but when calculated rsrAmount is 0 code returns and won't updates totalDrafts which can cause wrong calculations as those draft items removed...

user funds loss in withdraw() of StRSR because code don't revert when calculated rsrAmount is zero

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function withdraw in StRSR completes an account's unstaking. but when calculated amount of RSR token is 0 code still burn user draftRSR and returns. This would cause users small amount of deposits to get burned and user won't receive any funds. as withdr...

Solmate safetransfer and safetransferfrom does not check the codesize of the token address, which may lead to fund loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Possible miscalculation and loss of funds. Proof of Concept In AstariaRouter.commitToLiens, the safetransfer and safetransferfrom doesn’t check the existence of code at the token address. This is a known issue while using solmate’s libraries.Hence this m...

Failed transactions may lead to fund loss via replay attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Failed transactions inside executeTransaction will revert and make the nonces remain intact. Thus a replay attack with signature arguments is possible. Proof of Concept One can make replay attacks with the reverted executeTransaction function and reprodu...

SmartAccount wallet creation can be backdoored

Lines of code Vulnerability details At wallet creation time, an attacker can temporarily swap the address of the entrypoint to install a backdoor in the form of a registered module in the wallet. Since wallets don't necessarily need to be created by their owners, an attacker can frontrun the wall...

Attacker can gain control of counterfactual wallet

Lines of code Vulnerability details A counterfactual wallet can be used by pre-generating its address using the SmartAccountFactory.getAddressForCounterfactualWallet function. This address can then be securely used for example, sending funds to this address knowing in advance that the user will...