Unsafe transferFrom()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Yieldy.transferFrom returns false on failure instead of reverting. This might lead to moveFundsToUpgradedContract incorrectly unstaking and restaking tokens, potentially causing user or Migration.sol to lose funds depending on NEWCONTRACT and OLDCONTRACT...

Upgraded Q -> H from 222 [1656255302682]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 222 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: L-02 totalAssets of erc4626 should never revert eip-4626 According to the spec, totalAssets of erc4626 should never revert MUST NOT revert. wfcash would revert if it's matured but hasn't settled...

No check for set with address(0)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact can mint and get approve from address 0. Proof of Concept function setMarketPlaceaddress m external authorizedadmin returns bool if marketPlace != address0 revert ExistsmarketPlace; marketPlace = m; return true; Tools Used None Recommended Mitigation Ste...

IStaking(contracts[i]).canBatchContracts() will revert due to the fact that contracts[i] can contain address(0)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Issue: canBatchContracts will revert due to the fact that contractsi can contain address0 as an address which will revert the whole call. Affected Code File: BatchRequests.sol 33: function canBatchContracts external view returns Batch memory 34: uint256...

USN-5487-2 apache2 regression

USN-5487-1 fixed several vulnerabilities in Apache. Unfortunately, that update introduced a regression when proxying balancer manager connections in some configurations on Ubuntu 14.04 ESM. This update reverts those changes till further fix. We apologize for the inconvenience. Original advisory...

Transferring any amount of the underlying token to the CNote contract will make the contract functions unusable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract expects the balance of the underlying token to == 0 at all points when calling the contract functions by requiring getCashPrior == 0, which checks token.balanceOfaddressthis where token is the underlying asset. An attacker can transfer any...

_transferNFTs doesn't revert for bad tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact transferNFTs checks if an item is ERC721 or ERC1155 by using IERC165item.collection.supportsInterface.... function transferNFTs address from, address to, OrderTypes.OrderItem calldata item internal if IERC165item.collection.supportsInterface0x80ac58cd...

_processExtraToken() in _sendBadgerToTree() will transfer BADGER again

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact sendBadgerToTree sends amount BADGER to BADGERTREE. However processExtraToken in sendBadgerToTree also sends amount BADGER to the vault. it sends amount BADGER twice. It could result in revert if it doesn't have enough balance of BADGER. Proof of Concept...

Division by 0 can lead to accidentally revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Division by 0 can lead to accidentally revert, An example of a similar issue - code-423n4/2021-10-defiprotocol-findings84 Code instances: https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/tree/main/contracts/operators/Beefy/lp/BeefyZapBiswapLPVaultOperator.solL286...

Badger rewards from Hidden Hand can permanently prevent Strategy from receiving bribes

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the contract receives rewards from the hidden hand marketplace in BADGER then the contract tries to transfer the same amount of tokens twice to two different accounts, once with sendBadgerToTree in MyStrategy and again with processExtraToken in the...

Division by 0

Lines of code Vulnerability details Division by 0 can lead to accidentally revert, An example of a similar issue - code-423n4/2021-10-defiprotocol-findings84 Code instances: https://github.com/code-423n4/2022-06-nested/tree/main/contracts/operators/Beefy/lp/BeefyZapBiswapLPVaultOperator.solL286...

Missing receive() or fallback() payable function as native token is expected from WETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details receive or fallback payable function is missing in the current implementation of wfCashERC4626, calling WETH.withdraw will revert. WETH.withdrawdepositAmountExternal; As a result, mintInternal when isETH == true will revert. --- The text was updated successfull...

NotionalTradeModule._approve() function is missing return value check.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact NotionalTradeModule.mintFCashPosition wouldn't work properly when approve function fails to approve without reverting. Proof of Concept This approve function performs an ERC20.approve call but does not check the success return value. Some tokens do not...

Upgraded Q -> H from 25 [1655007954017]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 25 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: Fees should have a boundary of 100% 10000: Otherwise the contract will try to transfer more than possible which will result in reverts: It might also be helpful the have an fixed upper boundary that doesn't allow t...

Revert if too many rewardTokens in VE3DLocker

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are a couple logic that iterate rewardTokens, which may run exceed block gas limit if there are too many rewardTokens, potentially freezing reward. Proof of Concept function setApprovals external for uint256 i; i function claimableRewardsaddress...

Offer and consideration should be sorted when calculating orderHash

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When calculating the orderHash, the orderHash will be different due to the order of the elements in the offer and consideration, and the user is likely to get the wrong orderHash due to the wrong order. This will greatly increase the chances of the...

Wrong parameter in _removeTokenFrom call from _burn internal function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Break the posibility of third party callapprove or approvalForAll authorization to withdraw and merge functions what use the burn internal function Proof of Concept If somebody use the withdraw or merge functions as third party "operator" with approve or...

QA Report

Impact RubiconRouter.swapEntireBalance is supposed to buy at least buyamtmin of Y output tokens by using the caller's entire X input token balance. The problem is that instead of passing the buyamtmin minus the fee to swap, the code uses the caller's X token balance, maxAmount. This means the cal...

CVE-2022-1804

accountsservice no longer drops permissions when writting .pamenvironment...

Griefing attack by transferring aTokens to the contract

Originally part of a QA report by Tadashi 69 Griefing attack by transferring aTokens to the contract Summary: tokenToShares uses the following formula for computing the total shares of an user: return supply == 0 ? tokens : tokens.mulsupply.divaToken.balanceOfaddressthis; An attacker wishing to...