CVE-2022-43573

IBM Robotic Process Automation 20.12 through 21.0.6 is vulnerable to exposure of the name and email for the creator/modifier of platform level objects. IBM X-Force ID: 238678...

IBM Robotic Process Automation 信息泄露漏洞

IBM Robotic Process Automation is a robotic process automation product from International Business Machines IBM. An information disclosure vulnerability exists in IBM Robotic Process Automation versions 20.12 through 21.0.6, which stems from the platform's tendency to expose the name and email of...

PT-2023-14256 · Ibm · Ibm Robotic Process Automation

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions: IBM Robotic Process Automation versions 20.12 through 21.0.6 Description: The issue allows for the exposure of the name and email for the creator/modifier of platform level objects. Recommendations: For versions 20.12 through 21.0.6, update t...

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...

The function _execute could be called externally

Lines of code Vulnerability details Author: rotcivegaf Impact The execute use a modifier to only can called internally, also specified in the documentation of the function: Must be called internally. But this modifier can be pass if a contract call the execute or bulkExecute and in the returnDust...

internalCall modifier can be circumvented with execute / bulkExecute

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The internalCall modifier ensures that public functions can only be called from another public function and not directly. It is implemented like that: modifier internalCall requireisInternal, "This function should not be called directly"; ; The modifier...

Arbitrary call order to handle mutual consent can lead to unrecoverable native ETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Creating new credits and increasing the credit deposit requires both parties, the lender and the borrower, to agree. This is implemented by having both call the same function with the same call data. However, as it's possible to use native ETH as a credit token...

Authorization Bypass

OpenZeppelin Contracts is vulnerable to authentication bypass. The vulnerability exists because initializer modifier is not properly handled which allows an attacker to cause reentrancy by executing an external call to an untrusted address...

[PNM-001] finalize with malicious input may allow multiple calls leading to fund draining

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The finalize function of the contract SizeSealed is used to finalize an auction, allowing the auctioner or seller to be paid quote tokens and also eventually allowing successful bidders to withdraw base tokens. Once the finalize function is called,...

No access control for function deployDeletateFor

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. There is no access control for the deployDelegateFor function, so anyone can call this function and initialize all the parameters for a project. Moreover, the caller can also transfer the owner to a...

After proposed 0.8.0 upgrade kicks in, L2 finalizeInboundTransfer might not work.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description L2GraphTokenGateway uses the onlyL1Counterpart modifier to make sure finalizeInboundTransfer is only called from L1GraphTokenGateway. Its implementation is: modifier onlyL1Counterpart require msg.sender ==...

Risk of ETH funds Rug Pull in the moveWithheldETH and recoverEther functions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the frxETHMinter contract both the owner and governance timelock have the power to call the functions moveWithheldETH and recoverEther, those functions allow the transfer of the ETH from frxETHMinter to the owner or a given account, this means that th...

Unending and Eventually Futile TRIBE Redemption

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact TRIBE holders can redeem for pro rata share of remaining DAO controlled assets according to TIP-121 proposal. In the light of this, users would rush into redeeming their TRIBE before the balances of each tokensReceived held on this contract run out...

User can get loan without dept

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can get loan without permission and dept Proof of Concept TRSRY.withdrawReserves does same validation with TRSRY.getLoan and TRSRY.withdrawReserves does not have permissioned modifier, so anyone can get loan from Treasury without any permission and...

Treasury module is vulnerable to cross-contract reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can pay back their loan to the treasury module with protocol-owned tokens. This will cause their loan to decrease despite the protocol won't be given funds for it. Proof of Concept The code first measures the number of tokens in the treasury,...

Reentrancy in repayLoan

Lines of code Vulnerability details Reentrancy in repayLoan Impact token.safeTransferFrom is called and after that state with the value is calcualted, if token can be a wrong or compromised contract this would lead to a clasic reentrancy attack that would transfer more from the balance than...

MIMOAutoRebalance#rebalance can be used to drain vault due to reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Vault is drained instead of rebalanced Proof of Concept The caller of rebalance is allowed to supply arbitrary swapData when calling rebalance. The can be used to swap into a malicious ERC20 token that transfers control to the attacker. This opens the...

Vault rebalancing can be exploited if two vaults rebalance into the same vault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User funds stolen Proof of Concept Swap data is completely arbitrary and can be used to swap though malicious ERC20 tokens allowing control transfer. This control transfer would allow the attacker to call rebalance on a second vault and exploit both as...

Mathematical impossibility in Modifier

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the resolvable modifier, there is a mathematical check for disputeID disputeCount, and unless this is true, the modifier will revert. The default value of the variable disputeCount, which must be mathematically large, is 0 and its value is never...

Attacker can steal all the wrapped tokens, ether or native currency contained in the ReceiverImplementation contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact since all the functions in the ReceiverImplemention are all designed to be called by DepositBase and AxelarDepositService, why not create a simple modifer to check if msg.sender equals either of the two when a delegatecall or call occurs, like so modifie...