Sandwich attack on buy()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function Market:buy does not check or take in a minimum buy amount. This makes users' funds vulnerable to sandwich attacks. buy will increase shareDataid.tokenCount, and thus change the exchange rate of share price. price, fee =...

LACK OF DEADLINE AND SLIPPAGE CHECKS COULD PROMPT THE USERS TO EXECUTE THE BUY AND SELL TRANSACTIONS AT UNFAVOURABLE PRICE POINTS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Market.sol contract implements four functions which depend on the linear bonding curve to calculate the price and fee amounts associated with their logic execution. These functions are Market.buy, Market.sell, Market.mintNFT and Market.burnNFT. The...

No slippage control on deposit of LRTDepositPool.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no slippage control on depositAsset of LRTDepositPool, which expose user to sandwich attack. Proof of Concept Any deposit can be sandwiched in LRTDepositPool, especially when the pool is not balanced. Exploit Scenario: Bob, a normal user, calls...

depositAsset() does not check for slippage

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Prices are fetched from Chainlink but it is possible that the prices are stale due to to the fact that it is not checking for the freshness of the price or chainlink could be experiencing a crash event where it would return prices between a minimum and...

Missing slippage check in deposit function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Users depositing in the protocol have no control over the amount of RSETH minted in return for their deposit. Impact The depositAsset function present in the LRTDepositPool contract allows users to deposit any of the supported assets into the protocol i...

No slippage and / or deadline protection in depositAsset()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The function depositAsset allows a user to deposit a specific amount of any supported token and, in return, receive a specific amount of rsETH. This amount of rsETH is calculated by dividing the total value of deposited assets in ETH by the pri...

Introduce minEpoch to prevent withdrawal requests being front-runned

Lines of code Vulnerability details Original Issue M-04: VotiumStrategy withdrawal queue fails to consider available unlocked tokens causing different issues in the withdraw process Issue Details The issue raised above occured whenever there was an unlocked balance which could be used to fulfill...

Slippage attack on claiming rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Exploiter can abuse slippage to claim more weekly reward. The amount of slippage damage is unclear due to lack of deployment context and testing. Worst case scenario is the exploiter own 100% deposit of single pool allowing extreme slippage to steal enti...

Functions in the VotiumStrategy contract are susceptible to sandwich attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description In VotiumStrategyCore.sol, the buyCvx and sellCvx functions call exchangeunderlying of Curve's ETH / CVX pool to buy and sell CVX respectively: VotiumStrategyCore.solL233-L240 ICrvEthPoolCVXETHCRVPOOLADDRESS.exchangeunderlying value: ethAmountIn...

Missing slippage control while depositing rewards in SafEth and VotiumStrategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Deposits to SafEth and VotiumStrategy coming from rewards lack slippage control, making them susceptible to sandwich attacks by MEV bots, which can result in a loss of funds for the protocol. Impact Rewards coming from the VotiumStrategy contract are...

Lack of slippage protection for depositRewards() in AfEth.sol makes it susceptible to sandwich attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description In VotiumStrategyCore.sol, the buyCvx function calls exchangeunderlying of Curve's ETH / CVX pool to buy CVX: VotiumStrategyCore.solL233-L240 ICrvEthPoolCVXETHCRVPOOLADDRESS.exchangeunderlying value: ethAmountIn 0, 1, ethAmountIn, 0 // this is...

Missing slippage control when directly interacting with the VotiumStrategy contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Direct deposits and withdrawals within VotiumStrategy lack any slippage controls, which opens up the possibility of sandwich attacks and Miner Extractable Value MEV exploits. Impact Interactions in the AfEth protocol often require the exchange of ETH fo...

VotiumStrategyCore.applyRewards can be sandwhiched

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact VotiumStrategyCore.applyRewards can be sandwhiched, so users rewards will be lost. Proof of Concept VotiumStrategyCore.applyRewards will be used in order to swap all rewards to eth and then distribute eth to the safEth or vEth. The problem here is that...

Allowing price updates once in an epoch is extremely risky and open windows to a lot of issues

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Protocol currently knows about how this could be an effect, since the comments to both previewDeposit and convertToShares suggest that any difference attached to this should be considered slippage, but measures are not taken to ensure that this slippage ...

Missing Slippage Protection in unwrap function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The unwrap function swaps rUSDY to USDY and calls the oracle during these process to get the current USDY price. There is no slippage protection implemented, which can lead to loss of funds. Vulnerability Details Unexpected changes between the call to t...

Potential Price Slippage Due to Gaps in Consecutive Ranges

Lines of code Vulnerability details The method allows appending new Range instances without restrictions on the gap between the end of the last range and the start of the new one. Significant gaps between these ranges can result in considerable price slippages, introducing volatility in price...

Calculating slippage from price oracle is not accurate

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact calculating slippage using oracle prices will lead to inaccurate slippage values , due to this swaps will fail or execute with higher slippage. Proof of Concept In curveSwap function of RdpxV2Core contract slippage is being calculated using oracles price...

A difference in the rDPX price between the oracle and DEXs used for trading can cause more slippage than expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol will experience much higher slippage than supposed to due to using the wrong price in calculating the amount after slippage. Proof of Concept The protocol executes swaps on Uniswap and Curve. The issue arises due to the protocol using its ow...

Swap Slippage Check Missing Location: reLP function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the swap doesn't meet the slippage tolerance, the function will still continue executing. This could lead to the contract holding less tokenA than expected, which could affect the subsequent addLiquidity call and the final balances of the AMO and...

Missing slippage protection in _swap()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Without slippage, If the price of the tokens changes significantly during the swap, it could result in a large slippage, causing users to lose a significant amount of funds. An attacker can watch the mempool and then using flash bots execute a sandwich...