Reentrancy attack to swap()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. A malicious contract can initiate a reentrancy attack to the swap function: it can swap token0 for token1, receiving token0 but without effectively providing the due token1 amount used to mint instead...

Reentrancy Vulnerability in _performFinalChecksAndExecuteOrders function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact bytes memory accumulator = new bytesAccumulatorDisarmed; and transferitem, execution.offerer, execution.conduitKey, accumulator; The code uses an "accumulator" variable that is used in the transfer function. The accumulator is created using the line byte...

Proper use of dependecy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Using safeTransferFrom of solmate. There is no checking the token address is exist Proof of Concept After consulting the dev, the only check for making sure the token exist is a list on the UI/fontend side. A highly motivated attacker can easily disable...

Solmate's ERC20 does not check for token contract's existence

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Not checking for token existence is a know issue for Solmate. This can cause unexpected contract functionality for transfers implemented in the codes. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all...

Solmate safetransfer and safetransferfrom does not check the codesize of the token address, which may lead to fund loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Possible miscalculation and loss of funds. Proof of Concept In AstariaRouter.commitToLiens, the safetransfer and safetransferfrom doesn’t check the existence of code at the token address. This is a known issue while using solmate’s libraries.Hence this m...

Use safeTransefer and safeTransferfrom

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact and Recommended Mitigation Steps CErc20.sol Transfers are not safe because there is no checking whether the return value is true/false without use of Openzeppelins safeTransfer/safeTransferFrom. Should use the...

Upgradeable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since the contract OndoPriceOracle.sol is a critical contract it should have room to be upgrade, either use the library @openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable or leave a storage gap. An example of this would be to add this line: uint25650 private gap; Proof...

Deny of service in CCash.sol with "transfer" which can be unusable for smart contract calls

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CCash.doTransferOut method is susceptible to denial of service. Proof of Concept The logic of the doTransferOut method in CCash is as follows: The whole user withdraw is being handled with a token.transfer call. This is unsafe as transfer has hard...

Access control

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In contract OndoPriceOracle.sol, there is use of a dependency Ownable.sol for access control. The project should use Openzeppelins implementation of Ownable preferably the from the sub library Openzeppelin/contracts-upgradble. If the dev team argues for...

Upgradable liberty

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Instead of using @openzeppelin/contracts, use the upgradable liberty for contracts that should be able to be upgraded. This is the library that should be used :@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable Proof of Concept For more info have a look at this resourc...

Non-standard ERC20 tokens are locked in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function forwardERC20s transfers ERC20 tokens out of the contract to the owner. However, it does not properly handle non-standard ERC20 tokens such as USDT which do not return a bool when the transfer is called. The issue is that token is of type...

NFT operators of OpenZeppelin-based NFTs can issue debt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The Papr protocol allows NFT owners to issue debt against NFTs they deposit, denominated in papr. The solmate contracts that are used as imports for the project do not allow an operator on the NFT to participate in debt-creation; the ERC721 contract...

The transferFrom() method is used instead of safeTransferFrom(), which I assume is a gas-saving measure. I however argue that this isn’t recommended because:

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability Detail OpenZeppelin’s documentation discourages the use of transferFrom; use safeTransferFrom whenever possible The recipient could have logic in the startDraw, fwinnerClaimNFT, lastResortTimelockOwnerClaimNFT, function src/VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol-18...

IERC20.transfer does not support all ERC20 token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Proof of Concept Token like USDT known for using non-standard ERC20. Missing return boolean on transfer. Contract function handleDeposit will always revert when try to transferfrom this kind of tokens. Tools Used manual review Recommended Mitigation Step...

[NAZ-H2] Update Initializer Modifier To Prevent Reentrancy During Initialization

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Currently the project uses both : "@openzeppelin/contracts": "4.2.0", "@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable": "4.2.0". This dependency has a known high severity vulnerability Deserialization of Untrusted Data Proof of Concept Because of the Deserializatio...

Update initializer library to prevent reentrancy during initialization

Lines of code Vulnerability details Since proxied contracts do not make use of a constructor, it's common to move constructor logic to an external initializer function, usually called initialize. It then becomes necessary to protect this initializer function so it can only be called once. The...

Sale contracts use address.transfer method

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The FixedPrice, LPDA & OpenEdition contracts uses payableaddress.transfer method to send ETH which is unsafe. EIP1884 increases the gas cost certain opcodes, possibly making contracts go over the 2300 gas limit by transfer, making them unable to receive...

Missing ReEntrancy Guard to executeAcceptBidWithCredit function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if the mint was initiated by a contract, then the contract is checked for its ability to receive ERC721 tokens. Without reentrancy guard, onERC721Received will allow an attacker controlled contract to call the mint again, which may not be desirable to so...

Upgraded Q -> M from #454 [1670445333683]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 454 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑01 Don't use payable.transfer/payable.send The use of payable.transfer is heavily frowned upon because it can lead to the locking of funds. The transfer call requires that the recipient is either an EOA account, or...

Upgraded Q -> M from #400 [1670235895275]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 400 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 - EOA restriction of wallet representative can be bypassed A node operator can call registerBLSPublicKeys to register a node runner to LSD and create a new smart wallet. The protocol only allows EOAs to be...