User can't create TurboSafe through TurboMaster.createSafe()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A user can't create a safe because of the requiresAuth modifier in createSafe. Neither directly through the TurboMaster contract nor through the router. Proof of Concept Here's the test file I used to confirm it. I had to modify the contracts a little bi...

ERC4626 does not work with fee-on-transfer tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The docs/video say ERC4626.sol is in scope as its part of TurboSafe The ERC4626.deposit/mint functions do not work well with fee-on-transfer tokens as the amount variable is the pre-fee amount, including the fee, whereas the totalAssets do not include th...

onSafeSlurp() can be called by anyone on TurboMaster.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In TurboMaster.sol the onSafeSlurp function can be called directly by anyone while the logic implies that it should only be called by the slurp function on the TurboSafe.sol contract which performs the required calculations beforehand. When onSafeSlurp i...

Unchecked feiAmount range

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact BoosValue could be not safe. Proof of Concept The variable feiAmount is not used during the logic of the method canSafeBoostVault. According to the comment: The amount of Fei asset to check the Safe is authorized boost the Vault with. So this argument mu...

Use of IERC20.transfer() instead of SafeERC20.safeTransfer()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are multiple external calls to IERC20.transfer that suppose to transfer out tokens from the system. However, there are tokens like USDT that don't return any return value in their implementation of the transfer function, so calling IERC20.transfer ...

Missing briber check is equal to address(this), can cause imbalance between the bribe amount, and the actual balance that the contract has

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the depositBribeERC20 is called from https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-02-redacted-cartel/blob/main/contracts/TokemakBribe.sol, however if there is a malicious user that had depositor role, this user can call depositBribeERC20 and set the briber to the...

Tokens are directly transferred from briber to BribeVault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function depositBribeERC20 in BribeVault transfers tokens directly from the briber: // Since this method is called by a depositor contract, we must transfer from the account // that called the depositor contract - amount must be approved beforehand...

DoS by Creating Excessive Length withdrawals List.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is possible for an attacker to add a large number of withdrawals to the list withdrawals. The result is that users will be required to submit numerous processWithdrawals transactions before they are able to withdraw any of their own funds. This may...

authenticate modifier can be bypassed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In TurboRouter.sol the authenticate modifier checks if the msg.sender is equal to the owner function of an arbitrary address provided by the caller. Anyone can simply make a contract of the same type with the owner function returning an address that equa...

Arbitrary fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function transferBribes has a parameter named fees. Essentially, it allows an admin to apply any arbitrary fees and send them to the feeRecipient. This makes no sense because admins can manipulate the amounts however they want with 0 restrictions. I see...

Approvals not cleared when transferring profile

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The ApprovalFollowModule.approve function is indexed by both owner = IERC721HUB.ownerOfprofileId, profileId in case the profileId NFT is transferred. However, upon transfer, the old approvals are not cleared. This can lead to similar issues as OpenSea no...

Inconsistent behavior in the *FeeCollectModule contract can cause DOS.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the FeeCollectModule contract, the recipient of the fee is specified by the user when the post is created, that is, even if the profileNFT is transferred or destroyed, the fee will still be sent to the address specified by the user when the post is...

NestedFactory: User can utilise accidentally sent ETH funds via processOutputOrders() / processInputAndOutputOrders()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Should a user accidentally send ETH to the NestedFactory, anyone can utilise it to their own benefit by calling processOutputOrders / processInputAndOutputOrders. This is possible because: 1. receive has no restriction on the sender 2. processOutputOrder...

Wrong rebuild cache logic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Currently, many core operations like NestedFactory.create, NestedFactory.swapTokenForTokens are dependent on the assumption that the cache is well synced before these functions are executed however this may not necessarily be the case. Proof of Concept T...

All Tokens Can Be Stolen From Shelter Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact function withdrawIERC20 token, address to external override requireactivatedtoken != 0 && activatedtoken + GRACEPERIOD block.timestamp, "shelter not activated"; uint256 amount = savedTokenstoken client.shareOftoken, msg.sender / client.totalSharetoken;...

Shelter sets wrong claimed field

Lines of code Vulnerability details The Sheler.withdraw function sets the claimedtokenuser field but uses the shares of msg.sender. An attacker can withdraw tokens several times passing different to addresses, each time the msg.sender's shares will be used to receive tokens. function withdrawIERC...

Remaining reward balance is wrongly updated

Lines of code Vulnerability details The ConvexStakingWrapper.calcRewardIntegral function makes the dreward = IERC20reward.token.balanceOfaddressthis; - reward.remaining amount available for claiming. Then it updates the reward.remaining value to the balance before the distribution. RewardType...

Wrong pools reward calculation. User will get smaller rewards (always)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When adding new token pool for staking in MasterChef contract function addaddress token, uint allocationPoints, uint16 depositFee, uint startBlock All other, already added, pools should be updated but currently they are not. Instead, only totalPoints is...

Reentrancy in ConcurRewardPool::claimRewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any address that has nonzero reward for a token tokensi is able to drain all contact token funds if the transfer function is reentrant for example, ERC777 token. As tokensi is an arbitrarily implemented, a reentrant transfer function can be assumed to be...

Same reward token in pools can break accounting

Lines of code Vulnerability details The ConvexStakingWrapper contract uses several reward pool tokens rewardspidindex.token and it can be that the same token is used for different pids. Indeed, the CVX/CRV tokens are always at index 0 and 1. The rewards will be distributed to the first pool id pi...