The increaseTotalValidatorActiveCount in PermissionedPool incorrectly adds requiredValidators instead of validatorToDeposit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the Stader Stake Pools Manager calls stakeUserETHToBeacon chain, it does so calculating the requiredValidators that can be added to the pool. The function internally also uses the allocateValidatorsAndUpdaterOperatorId to compute each operator's...

stake before unfreeze can take away most of rsr rewards in the freeze period

Lines of code Vulnerability details If the system is frozen, the only allowed operation is stRST.stake. And the payoutRewards is not called during freeze period: if !main.frozen payoutRewards; function payoutRewards external requireNotFrozen; payoutRewards; So the payoutLastPaid stays before the...

Users who stake at the end of a freeze would get rewards as if they've staked before the freeze

Lines of code Vulnerability details This one was reported in the first contest, it was mitigated but a code change that was made since then brings it back again. Impact Users who stake while frozen would get a share of the rewards for the period since the last call to payoutRewards. This means th...

Attacker can frontrun user bid with wrong lotId and create the lot with that lotId, forcing the user to take a big loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User takes a huge loss by getting 1 SD token, but bidding an amount possibly much bigger. Attackers are incetivized to perform this if they are ETHx holders and want to increase the value of their tokens. Proof of Concept When a user adds a bid to the...

Inflation attack by drip

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The drip might inflate the exchange rate on an initial stake such that that subsequent stakers get minted zero wxETH. Their stake can then be unstaked by the first staker, together with their own first stake and inflation investment. Effectively, the fir...

wxETH.sol Inflation Attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first staker may suffer an Inflation Attack and lose the funds Proof of Concept Currently wxETH still has the common ERC4626 'Inflation Attack' malicious users can front-run the first staker, raise exchange rates through donations, then achieve...

Virgin stake can claim all drops

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If wxETH drips when nothing is staked, then the first staker can claim every drop. Proof of Concept Suppose drip is enabled when totalSupply == 0. At least one block passes and the first staker stakes, just 1 xETH is enough. This mints her 1 wxETH. This...

First 1 wei deposit can produce lose of user xETH funds in wxETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The present implementation of the wxETH::stake functions permits the sending of tokens to the contract, even if the quantity of wxETH is zero. This can result in users losing funds, particularly when the initial deposit is only 1 wei, and the extent...

stake() function: The provided stake function lacks checks to prevent a lender from staking multiple NFTs in the same Ajna pool. The function allows any owned position NFT to be staked without considering whether the lender has already staked in the pool. This potentially opens up the system to an abuse where a lender stakes multiple NFTs for the same liquidity position.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current stake function lacks checks to prevent a lender from staking multiple NFTs in the same Ajna pool. This could lead to an abuse of the system where a lender stakes multiple NFTs for the same liquidity position, potentially earning more rewards...

unstake() function: The unstake function permits the unstaking of multiple position NFTs from the same liquidity pool (LP) by the same lender. This opens the possibility for a lender to claim more Ajna token rewards than they are entitled to by staking and unstaking multiple NFTs associated with the same LP.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The absence of a mechanism to prevent a lender from unstaking multiple NFTs for the same liquidity pool LP could potentially lead to the exploitation of the Ajna token reward system. A lender can mint, stake, and unstake multiple NFTs for the same LP fro...

Rounding loss in and with approxPrice()

Rounding loss in and with approxPrice Description SafEth.approxPrice contains a rounding loss of the form a/k + b/k = ac/b. We would...

Mitigation of M-12: mitigation error, see comments

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-12: mitigation error, see comments Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings150 Comments While the proposed change correctly mitigates the issue, in the sense that it introduces a user controlled slippage for stake...

Mitigation Confirmed for Mitigation of M-10: Issue mitigated

Mitigated issue M-10: Stuck ether when use function stake with empty derivativesderivativeCount = 0 The issue was that stake will accept payment but not issue safETH when derivativeCount == 0 or when all weightsi == 0. Mitigation review The proposed mitigation simply adds a requirederivativeCount...

Mitigation of M-11: Issue NOT mitigated

Mitigated issue M-11: Residual ETH unreachable and unuitilized in SafEth.sol The issue was that the rounding losses from partitioning msg.value in stake and rebalanceToWeights was left irretrievably in the contract. Mitigation review Previously rebalanceToWeights withdrew all staked funds and...

Chainlink price feed responses are not validated

NEW ISSUE - MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED NEW ISSUE - MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED adriro-NEW-H-02 Chainlink price feed responses are not validated Link to changesets: Impact The protocol team introduced Chainlink price feeds for the Reth and WstEth derivatives in order to mitigate price manipulatio...

Mitigation of M-12: Issue NOT mitigated

Mitigated issue M-12: No slippage protection on stake in SafEth.sol There were issues with either a lack of slippage protection or a hard set slippage. Slippage protection was missing in deposit for Reth.deposit only if depositing in the Rocket Pool and in Reth.withdraw, as well as in stake becau...

Mitigation Confirmed for Mitigation of M-05: See comments

Mitigated issue M-05: Missing derivative limit and deposit availability checks will revert the whole stake function The issue was that stake calls deposit on each derivative without considering certain conditions under which some deposit might revert. There is an overlap between this issue and...

Mitigation of M-11: Issue not mitigated, mitigation error

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of M-11: Issue not mitigated, mitigation error Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings152 Comments Even though the sponsor followed the warden's recommendation in issue M-11, I don't think the proposed change properly...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #883 [1682591277339]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 883 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: As such, if deposit or withdraw reverts for any derivative, stake and unstake will fail. This could cause stake and unstake to permanently revert for an prolonged period of time, as it is possible for deposit and...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #883 [1682591284215]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 883 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: This could cause stake and unstake to permanently revert for an prolonged period of time, as it is possible for deposit and withdraw to revert due to unchecked external conditions: Reth The rocket pool DAO can disabl...