kernel: netfilter: use-after-free due to improper element removal in nft_pipapo_remove()

A use-after-free flaw was found in the Linux kernel's netfilter in the way a user triggers the nftpipaporemove function with the element, without a NFTSETEXTKEYEND. This issue could allow a local user to crash the system or potentially escalate their privileges on the system...

Creator can earn holder fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Creator can earn creator and holder as well. Proof of Concept In market.sol contract there is a buy function which cannot be used by creator of share. requireshareDataid.creator != msg.sender, "Creator cannot buy"; However, it's still possible for creato...

Fee for minting the Market Nft token can be manipulated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Fee of minting the Market's NFT is calculated based on total share count tokenCount. Such approach opens a way to collect big fees for fee recipients by deliberately stacking share tokens. address bondingCurve = shareDataid.bondingCurve; uint256...

Holder cannot claim fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Assume a user buys some shares and mints it to an NFT and sends the shares to a cold wallet for safety. The following happens: A user buys 10 shares using buy is called, the rewardsLastClaimedValue is updated to the latest holder rewards, the...

Malicious shares can't be paused or stopped after creation, so users will continue use them

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In case if share creator is a malefactor he can try to do multiple malicious operations: Pump and Dump attack with price manipulation, artificially increase fees for NFT minting. Proof of Concept Both attacks described in my other reports and unfortunate...

Switching to sales model 3 for a collection with pre-existing supply could brick the ' mint() ' function for that collection.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ' Periodic sales' model cannot be used in a collection with Pre-existing supply because of how timeOfLastMint is calculated in mint function. This prevents the system from flexibly combining different sales models in a single collection as intended by th...

No Chainlink error handling in case of ethereums gas prices increasing or subscription running out of Link.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any collections making use of the ChainLink VRF2 randomizer could potentially get 0x0 hashes for their nfts. Due to uint32 public callbackGasLimit = 40000; being hardcoded, any gas fluctuations on Ethereum main net, could potentially not be enough for th...

NFT Claiming Issue Due to Lacking Ownership

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The vulnerability in the AuctionDemo contract has a significant impact on the ability of auction winners to claim their NFTs. The root cause of the vulnerability is that the AuctionDemo contract fails to check whether it owns or has approval to transfer...

When the burnToMint function is enabled, any bad actor can transfer the nft-to-burn when it receives the newly minted nft, getting burned after he no longer is the owner.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Medium impact, it affects the functionallity of the nfts with other contracts, as they wouldn't want to interact with tokens that could get burned. Explanation in the NextGenCore contract, the burnToMint function has the minting of the new nft, which mak...

AuctionDemo::claimAuction() - L105: Logic bug in the conditional statement where the timestamp check should be > instead of >=.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Would enable the winning bidder/bid to be selected WHILE it's still possible to bid higher in the auction. I.e. current comparison logic makes it possible to select auction winner while the auction isnt over yet. there's the risk of the true/valid highes...

Users get pay for multiple NFTs and only get 1 minted

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users get only 1 NFT after paying for multiple or more than one Proof of Concept In MinterContract.mint users can mint more than one token and are allowed to pay for the number of tokens minted. function mint uint256 collectionID, uint256 numberOfTokens,...

cancelBid() and cancelAllBids() functions are incorrectly implemented, resulting in partial/complete DoS-ing of bid cancelling functionality.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact cancelBid and cancelAllBids functions are incorrectly implemented, resulting in partial/complete DoS-ing of bid cancelling functionality. bidder could lose funds when they change their mind and want to cancel their bid, imagine they were the top bidder a...

Owner of the token will not receive the funds of the highest bid after an Auction is claimed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After the auction is completed, the winner or protocol owner must call the claimAuction function. At this point, the token is sent to the auction participant who made the highest bid, and the funds from that bid are sent to the owner of the protocol. And...

Missing highBid value update returnHighestBidder would return the wrong HighestBidder causing nft to be minted to the wrong winner

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact returnHighestBidder is used in checking who the winner is, however the code implemented in doing this was flawed as it missed updating highBid variable for the current higest bid found so far before next iteration. Missing this would cost function to...

decreaseVotingPower() can be front-ran by an attacker to claim an amount of assets from the TokenDistributor more than he should be able to claim or withdraw more assets than he should be able to claim through rageQuit()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Overview of the vulnerability / PoC The function decreaseVotingPower in PartyGovernanceNFT does not have a front-running protection against a user claiming his share of a distribution or a user ragequitting using a token which is going to get it's voting power...

anyone can burn the governance NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Impact The impact of this finding centers on the PartyGovernanceNFT.sol smart contract, specifically within the context of the burnuint256 tokenId function. This critical function operates without any access control mechanisms in place. Consequently, it...

The 51% majority can hijack the party's precious tokens through an arbitrary call proposal if the AddPartyCardsAuthority contract is added as an authority in the party.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Pre-requisite knowledge & an overview of the features in question 1. The AddPartyCardsAuthority contract: The AddPartyCardsAuthority contract is a contract designed to be integrated into a Party and it has only one purpose, and it is to mint new party governanc...

Stale preciousListHash state variable permanently prevents a party from executing non-unanimous arbitrary call proposals and poses a high security risk.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Overview of the execute function in PartyGovernance Before diving into the details of the vulnerability, I need to explain how the execute function works in the PartyGovernance.sol contract. The execute is the function responsible for executing a proposal after...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #246 [1699029732469]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 246 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 The tokenURI is not compatible with the ERC721 standard Description function tokenURIuint256 safeId public view override returns string memory uri uri = nftRenderer.rendersafeId; tokenURI will call nftRenderer...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #300 [1699029650174]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 300 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-01 transferSAFEOwnership does not reset users allowed to modify a safe on behalf of an owner transferSAFEOwnership is not deleting potential allowed users in safeCan upon transferring a safe ownership. This could...