CVE-2022-46173 Elrond go Processing: fallback search of SCRs when not found in the main cache

Elrond-GO is a go implementation for the Elrond Network protocol. Versions prior to 1.3.50 are subject to a processing issue where nodes are affected when trying to process a cross-shard relayed transaction with a smart contract deploy transaction data. The problem was a bad correlation between t...

PT-2022-27787 · Elrond-Go · Elrond-Go

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions: Elrond-GO versions prior to 1.3.50 Description: The issue is a processing problem where nodes are affected when trying to process a cross-shard relayed transaction with a smart contract deploy transaction data. This occurs due to a bad...

A BETTER APPROACH TO REVERTING CODE LINES ON _ADDCOLLATERALTOVAULT() AND _REMOVECOLLATERAL()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In PaperControl.sol, callers would have to deal with function pre-maturely reverting upon encountering an element in collateralArr failing to pass the if statement in the function logic of addCollateralToVault and removeCollateral. The amount of gas wast...

Pending owner can front-run current owner when current owner wants to cancel the ownership transfer.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact OwnableUpgradable contract has been modified to transfer ownership in a two-step ownership transfer way. This introduces an issue of front-run when admin adds a pendingOwner but later on decides to cancel the ownership transfer. Pending owner can become...

Choosing a cheap gas lane may result in no winners

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The drawer can choose whichever gas lanekeyHash they like. Giving this choice to the drawer may result in no winners if the network is congested and the drawer chooses a cheap gas lane. Recommended Mitigation Steps Check the options of keyHashes that can...

[NAZ-M2] Usage of send() Can Result In Revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Several functions are sendusing is used by the across several functions to transfer ETH/WETH. send uses a fixed amount of gas, which was used to prevent reentrancy. However this limit your protocol to interact with others contracts that need more than th...

Liquidity cannot be removed by an approved address via Router

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Using the Router, liquidity can only be removed by the owner of an NFT, which significantly limits liquidity management. The Pool contract, however, does allow approved addresses to remove liquidity. Proof of Concept The Router contract is a higher level...

call() should be used instead of transfer() on an address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact call should be used instead of transfer on an address payable Proof of Concept The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when: 1. The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function...

Use of payable.transfer() may lock user funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The use of payable.transfer is heavily frowned upon because it can lead to the locking of funds. The transfer call requires that the recipient has a payable callback, only provides 2300 gas for its operation. This means the following cases can cause the...

LPDA sales can potentially have buying function reverting indefinately due to negative price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact While i'm assuming there are checks for this on UI or off-chain, this wasn't mentioned in the docs or the comments, so its worth flagging and possibly implementating the mitigation step as a precaution since it is also cheap on gas. The price can...

Upgraded Q -> M from #76 [1670347574630]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 76 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L02 address.callvalue:x should be used instead of payable.transfer Impact The use of payable.transfer is heavily frowned upon because it can lead to the locking of funds. The transfer call requires that the recipient...

Upgraded Q -> M from #35 [1670345543949]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 35 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: No. 2 Any smart contract that uses transfer or send is taking a hard dependency on gas costs by forwarding a fixed amount of gas: 2300. If gas costs are subject to change, then smart contracts can’t depend on any...

CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract gas limit bug

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract uses the maxSubmissionCost parameter to determine if the gasLimit provided to the processCalls function is greater than the maxGasLimit. This is incorrect because maxSubmissionCost should not be used to determine t...

Possible DoS On executeCalls() function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract can be in a state of DoS as the function executeCalls would consume all the gas as there is no upper limit on the number of calls that can be inside the array calls. Proof of Concept In the function here it perform a for loop and loops throu...

Incorrect gas limit check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The relayCalls function incorrectly checks the gas limit provided in the gasLimit parameter against the maxGasLimit variable instead of checking if it is less than or equal to the msg.gas value. Impact This bug allows the caller of relayCalls to specify...

Relayer/executor-already-set Revert in setExecutor()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The setExecutor function reverts if the executor variable has already been set. Impact If the executor variable has already been set and setExecutor is called again, the transaction will fail and any gas spent on the transaction will be lost...

CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract: GasLimitTooHigh revert error not caught

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The relayCalls function in the CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract reverts when the gasLimit parameter is greater than the maxGasLimit, but it does not have a catch block to handle the error. As a result, the transaction will fail without providing any...

CrossChainExecutor contracts do not update the necessary states for failing transactions.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CrossChainExecutorArbitrum and CrossChainExecutorOptimism contracts both use CallLib library to invoke Calls on external contract. As per the CallLib library implementation, any failing Call results in the entire transaction getting reverted. The...

gas-globe.com Cross Site Scripting vulnerability OBB-3086107

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...

fee distribution is only for the msg.to contract, instead of the to address of the call traces, which is not reasonable for the gas economic system.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The target contract of the fee distribution is got by contract := msg.To in the evmhooks.go . So the fee distribution is only for the msg.to contract, instead of the to address of the call traces. It means that any one use a contract wallet or setup a...