Design/Logic Flaw

Nextcloud server is an open source home cloud implementation. In affected versions a missing scope validation allowed users to create workflows which are designed to be only available for administrators. Some workflows are designed to be RCE by invoking defined scripts, in order to generate PDFs,...

CVE-2023-28835

CVE-2023-28835 affects Nextcloud Server where the generated fallback password for shares used a weak random-number generator. This could allow brute-forcing the share password if no password policy is enabled. Mitigation: upgrade Nextcloud Server to 24.0.10 or 25.0.4 (or later) or enable a passwo...

CVE-2023-28835 Insecure randomness for default password in nextcloud

Nextcloud server is an open source home cloud implementation. In affected versions the generated fallback password when creating a share was using a weak complexity random number generator, so when the sharer did not change it the password could be guessable to an attacker willing to brute force...

CVE-2023-26482 Scope of workflow operations is not validated in nextcloud server

Nextcloud server is an open source home cloud implementation. In affected versions a missing scope validation allowed users to create workflows which are designed to be only available for administrators. Some workflows are designed to be RCE by invoking defined scripts, in order to generate PDFs,...

CVE-2023-26482 Scope of workflow operations is not validated in nextcloud server

Nextcloud server is an open source home cloud implementation. In affected versions a missing scope validation allowed users to create workflows which are designed to be only available for administrators. Some workflows are designed to be RCE by invoking defined scripts, in order to generate PDFs,...

CVE-2023-26464

A flaw was found in Chainsaw and SocketAppender components with Log4j 1.x on JRE, less than 1.7. This issue may allow an attacker to use a logging entry with a specially-crafted hashmap or hashtable, depending on which logging component is in use, to process and exhaust the available memory in th...

All the STeth balance of WstEth contract can be drained by a malicious user.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The impact of this finding is severe, as it can result in the complete loss of STeth tokens held by the WstEth contract. This could lead to a significant financial loss for the contract and its users. Proof of Concept For demonstration purpose, Alice is...

Zero value used for sqrtPriceLimitX96

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In swapExactInputSingleHop in Reth.sol the sqrtPriceLimitX96 parameter is set to 0 which is useful for testing but can lead to price manipulation attacks. From the uniswap docs: In production, this value can be used to set the limit for the price the swa...

Ether Locked when Attempting to Call stake() during Setup

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact During the period between the deployment of the SafEth contract and the addition of derivatives, there is a possibility for users to send Ether to the contract using the stake payable function. In this scenario, the funds will become locked and...

Incorrect minOut calculation in SfrxEth.withdraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Final value of mintOut will be lower or higher according to the SFRXETH/FRXETH price ratio. This can result in higher slippage where user can loss funds. Else in other case the slippage will be low and transaction gets reverted unexpectedly Proof of...

Hardcoded slippage can lead to user's transactions being front run

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Impact Since all the main function that the user execute implement slippage, attackers can front run any user transaction since the slippage amount is set to 1% on all the lines of code listed above. This can lead to sandwich attacks. Proo...

withdraw function of WstEth derivative contract probably sends wrong ETH amount back to owner contract/user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Sends the wrong amount of ETH back to owner contract/user. In most cases, probably way too much, it sends the entire contract ETH balance. All the other calculations in the withdraw function seem correct, from what can be seen, but, as is the case with...

[H-02] Front-running of first deposit allows attacker to steal funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to the way in which the SafEth share price is calculated, an attacker can front-run the first depositor's transaction and steal funds through an inflation attack. SafEth::stake calculates the share price by dividing the total asset amount by the tota...

Missing critical check of amount minted tokens in stake() -> deposit()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact No require to ensure that SfrxEth or WstEth is minted when calling in SafEth.sol stake - IDerivative.deposit function Proof of Concept In the deposit function in Reth.sol has a require statement to ensure that the token was actually minted. But there is ...

Incorrect parameter in withdraw function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An incorrect parameter is used in the withdraw function in SfrxEth.sol. The amount variable is used when the frxEthBalance variable should be used to calculate minOut. The amount that gets swapped at the FRXETHCRVPOOLADDRESS is the frxEthBalance, not the...

dMute.sol: Attacker can push lock items to victim's array such that redemptions are forever blocked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This report deals with how an attacker can abuse the fact that he can lock MUTE tokens for any other user and thereby push items to the array of UserLockInfo structs of the user. There are two functions in the dMute contract that iterate over all items i...

And all this assembly shall know that the OWNER SafEth not with derivatives: for the derivative is the OWNER'S, and he will rebalanceToWeights it into his EOA.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner of SafEth can at any time steal all staked funds. Proof of Concept SafEth.addDerivative allows the owner to add any derivative contract, such as one where he can withdraw all IDerivative.deposit-ed funds. SafEth.adjustWeights allows the owner t...

WstEth.withdraw() improper implementation of slippage check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the current implementation of withdraw, the amount is not controlled by minOut. Impact: Users can get rekt. Proof of Concept function withdrawuint256 amount external onlyOwner IWStETHWSTETH.unwrapamount; uint256 stEthBal =...

poolPrice in Reth.sol can overflow and revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact To determine the value of sqrtPriceX96 that will cause an overflow, we need to analyze the calculation in the function: sqrtPriceX96 uintsqrtPriceX96 1e18 96 2 The maximum value for a uint256 is 2^256 - 1. An overflow occurs when the result of the...

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...