Unable to updateReward if there are too many rewardTokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If there are too many rewardTokens, updateReward might run exceed block gas limit and freeze fund since stake and withdraw have the updateReward modifier. Proof of Concept function addReward address rewardToken, address veAssetDeposits, address...

Lack of Access Restriction for Conduit Creation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call the createConduit function in the ConduitController contract to create new channels and set the conduit owner. This is dangerous because a hacker can create a new conduit and set himself as the owner of the conduit. The hacker can use the...

Contracts are allowed to lock funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In current scenario, it is not checked whether the account locking the amount is a contract or a normal user. A malicious user can simply lock the amount in a contract and later transfer/sell this contract to another user who will then own the locked...

Lack of minting validation could lead users to lose funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Depositors will lose funds if cliff totalCliffs. Proof of Concept Depositor calls Booster.deposit which transfers the given amount of lptoken to VoterProxy.sol. VeTokenMinter.mint is called in sequence. In this case totalSupply == maxSupply and therefore...

Incorrect msg.value usage could lead to fund loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The burnToTarget function is using msg.value in a loop which is passed to swapAll function of swapperRouter. Since msg.value amount will not change within loop, contract will end up using its own ETH Proof of Concept 1. User calls burnToTarget function...

Wrong fee calculation between Router & Market

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The wrong fee calculation can cause a loss to users' fund and this loss will be stuck in RubiconRouter Proof of Concept We have the default $feeBPS = 20, BPS = 10000$ Let's assume that alice call RubiconRouter.swappayamt=1000000 Through router, alice wil...

Reserve ratio isn't enforced after a trade execution

Lines of code Vulnerability details impact Users could get exposed to higher risk than desired and funds to withdraw from the vault could not be available Proof of Concept The reserve ratio is the parameter that ensures a percentage of the tokens is always available to be withdrawn from a pool by...

Router: Transferring Token to the Pair contract will cause future liquidity providers to lose funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Same as code-423n4/2022-01-elasticswap-findings146 In the current implementation, the amount of LP tokens to be minted when addLiquidity is calculated based on the ratio between the amount of newly added tokens and the reserve variable in the Pair...

TransmuterBuffer's _alchemistWithdraw use hard coded slippage that can lead to user losses

Lines of code Vulnerability details exchange - exchange - alchemistWithdraw is user funds utilizing call sequence and the slippage hard coded to 1% there can cause a range of issues. For example, if there is not enough shares, the number of shares to withdraw will be unconditionally reduced to th...

ETH transefer is not checked properly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Title ETH transefer is not checked properly Impact Function will return successfully even if the transfer of ETH failed Proof of Concept in smart-contracts/LidoVault.solL141-L142 the function returns before checking that the ETH is sent properly. This may cause...

YieldManager's distributeYield can be subject to sandwich attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details distributeYield uses Uniswap swaps via convertAssetToExchangeToken and Curve swaps via convertToStableCoin. UniswapAdapter and CurveswapAdapter do use Oracle for price estimation, but distributeYield calls use hard coded 5% SLIPPAGE, which is wide enough to mak...

The check for value transfer success is made after the return statement in _withdrawFromYieldPool of LidoVault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can lose their funds Proof of Concept The code checks transaction success after returning the transfer value and finishing execution. If the call fails the transaction won't revert since requiresent, Errors.VTCOLLATERALWITHDRAWINVALID; won't execut...

TokenType mismatch with true type can be exploited to steal funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details A vault can be created for different TokenTypes, namely ERC20 and ERC721. These tokens have different logic, so a user needs to pass the type of the underlying token when creating a vault. At the end of createVault the user's tokens are pulled into the contract...

EthAssetManager and ThreePoolAssetManager don't control Meta tokens decimals

Lines of code Vulnerability details Both contracts treat meta assets as if they have fixed decimals of 18. Minting logic breaks when it's not the case. However, meta tokens decimals aren't controlled. If actual meta assets have any other decimals, minting slippage control logic of both contracts...

Executors need to be trusted

62 comment Warden: cmichel Executors need to be trusted, otherwise, they can just call sendFundsToUser to transfer out any funds as they please. Consider adding threshold signatures to prevent all funds from being lost when a single executor is compromised. --- The text was updated successfully,...

FixedPricePassThruGate locked ether

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Contract FixedPricePassThruGate is a pass thru gate that is passing funds to the gate's beneficiary. Function passThruGate requires to send ether that is equal or more than gate.ethCost. In the case of receiving more ether than gate.ethCost, passThruGate...

Deprecated safeApprove() function

Originally submitted by warden Dravee in 146, duplicate of 178 related to the use of safeApprove. This is upgraded from a QA report to standalone issue because it correctly described the revert when trying to call safeApprove on non-zero allowance. QA report that only describe safeApprove as...

Usage of deprecated transfer to send ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details The usage of address.send is considered a bad practice as it only uses 2300 gas and you create a high dependency of gas. It is true that this is only used in an emergency to transfer the funds to the vault, but it always a better practice ...

Fund loss or theft by attacker with creating a flash loan and setting SuperVault as receiver so executeOperation() will be get called by lendingPool but with attackers specified params

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact According to Aave documentation, when requesting flash-loan, it's possible to specify a receiver, so function executeOperation of that receiver will be called by lendingPool. In the SuperVault there is no check to prevent this attack so attacker can use...

Fund theft In PARMinerV2 with depositing in VotingEscrow and calling updateBoost() to update user.stakeWithBoost without updating accAmountPerShare and accParAmountPerShare. and then collecting more rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Attacker can generate more PAR and MIMO reward for himself and steal others rewards by staking in VotingEscrow then calling updateBoost which updates user.stakeWithBoost based on user boost multiplier which is based on user VotingEscrow balance without...