In stake() function shares increase exponentially for the same amount of deposit as the totalSupply() increases, causing the loss for the initial stakers relative to later ones.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Stake function don not allocate the safEth according to the totalShares, instead as more user deposit, later depositers get higher share of the value as compared to ealy depositers. Proof of Concept Consider Alice, Bob and Jenny want to stake their eth...

[H-01] RETH oracle manipulation allows attacker to steal funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Asymmetry SafEth protocol aims to help diversify and decentralize liquid staking derivatives, exchanging ether staked in the protocol for staked ether derivative tokens based on some relative weighting. A function exposed by these derivative wrapper...

Users can lose funds due to stuck NFT's

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If msg.sender is a contract could also be smart contract wallet that does not implement the onERC721Received method, in the current implementation of fuse Namespace.sol && mint Bio.sol, the tx will still be successful, and the token will be minted. In th...

Potential Risk of Accidentally Minting Tokens to Incorrect Accounts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact 1. the Intended recipient of the tokens might not receive them, which could lead to a loss of funds or a delay in the intended use of the tokens 2. incorrect account holder could receive the tokens by mistake, leading to a discrepancy in the total token...

Owner is able to mint 1 token more than 1000 prelaunch tokens due to wrong equality check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Owner is able to mint 1 token more than 1000 prelaunch tokens due to wrong check here Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant...

No access control in mint function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Canto Bio Protocol: Should allow the association of a single biography to an identity address The mint function does not have any access control mechanism in place, allowing anyone to mint multiple Bio NFTs. This could lead unwanted minting of bios. Tool...

[H-3] Any account can mint or burn an unlimited number of vault tokens and drain the Kangaroo Vault.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This is a failure in setting up access control. Anyone could set the vault address to their address and call the mint/burn function to mint and burn vault tokens. The impact is severe since all the funds in Kangaroo vault can be withdrawn by anyone. Proo...

Multiple Mint of PFP with same NFTID

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious user having only one NFT can mint PFP severally. Hence one user with only one NFT but multiple PFP. This isn't the intended implementation. Proof of Concept Is self-understandable. POC not required Recommended Mitigation Steps storing used NFT'...

A user can mint a PFP NFT multiple times using the same _nftId

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A user might unintentionally "intentionally" try to take advantage of the mint function in ProfilePicture.sol Proof of Concept The pfp mapping stores the pfp data per NFT, L31-32 of Profilepicture.sol /// @notice Stores the pfp data per NFT mappinguint25...

Missing check for NFT contract, a bad actor can mint a PFP NFT without having a CID NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Missing check for NFT contract, a bad actor can mint a PFP NFT without having a CID NFT. Proof of Concept The ProfilePicture.mint is used to mint a new PFP NFT. function mintaddress nftContract, uint256 nftID external uint256 tokenId = ++numMinted; if...

Misconfiguration of LP token contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the LP token contract is set to a non-contract address or a no-revert-on-transfer token, users will be able to: 1. Mint huge amounts of BYTES 2.0 tokens. 2. Drain the contract of all its LP tokens. Vulnerability Details Throughout the contract, it is...

Price manipulation attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The PriceFeed.sol was marked OOS but I believe this to be a valid issue. If the chainlink feed fails which is does from time to time, the Tellor price feed takes over no matter what the delta is compared to the chainlink price. This is an issue because t...

CVE-2023-26488

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The ERC721Consecutive contract designed for minting NFTs in batches does not update balances when a batch has size 1 and consists of a single token. Subsequent transfers from the receiver of that token may overflow the...

CVE-2023-26488 OpenZeppelin Contracts contains Incorrect Calculation

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The ERC721Consecutive contract designed for minting NFTs in batches does not update balances when a batch has size 1 and consists of a single token. Subsequent transfers from the receiver of that token may overflow the...

CVE-2023-26488 OpenZeppelin Contracts contains Incorrect Calculation

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The ERC721Consecutive contract designed for minting NFTs in batches does not update balances when a batch has size 1 and consists of a single token. Subsequent transfers from the receiver of that token may overflow the...

CVE-2023-26488 OpenZeppelin Contracts contains Incorrect Calculation

OpenZeppelin Contracts is a library for secure smart contract development. The ERC721Consecutive contract designed for minting NFTs in batches does not update balances when a batch has size 1 and consists of a single token. Subsequent transfers from the receiver of that token may overflow the...

PT-2023-20679 · Openzeppelin · Openzeppelin Contracts

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions: OpenZeppelin Contracts versions prior to 4.8.2 Description: The ERC721Consecutive contract, designed for minting NFTs in batches, does not update balances when a batch has size 1 and consists of a single token. Subsequent transfers from the...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #648 [1675725284542]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 648 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: 1. Incorrect Minter Address Validation in Mint Function Link : Summary: The mint function in the RabbitHoleReceipt contract does not correctly check the msg.sender address for minter permissions. The onlyMinter...

Mint to without check for zero address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Mint to without check for zero address. This can lead to lost of token Proof of Concept Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps add check to be sure that address to is not empty --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: Al...

Any user is able to mint a new receipt/ticket tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the RabbitHoleReceipt and RabbitHoleTickets contracts the minterAddress should be the only account allowed to mint a new token, but due to an error in the onlyMinter modifier all the users are able to mint new tokens without permission, the impact of...