Malicious code in stake-api (npm)

--- -= Per source details. Do not edit below this line.=- Source: ossf-package-analysis b55c374f66443cf75e6670357a98d26a83f7f6dfb5e9b4a72da9f3f21f75ded6 The OpenSSF Package Analysis project identified 'stake-api' @ 1.0.0 npm as malicious. It is considered malicious because: - The package...

VotiumStrategyCore.applyRewards can be sandwhiched to make profit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact VotiumStrategyCore.applyRewards can be sandwhiched to make profit. Proof of Concept VotiumStrategyCore.applyRewards function will swap all rewards of contract into eth and then stake them into safEth or vEth contract. As result price of afEth token will...

Total stake will be incorrectly reduced if the transcoder was already deactivated.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This will result in the total active stake being incorrectly calculated in future rounds. Some transcoders may get more or less rewards than they should. Proof of Concept The key functions involved are: slashTranscoder - Called to slash a transcoder...

using increaseTotalStakeUncheckpointed() instead of increaseTotalStake() can lead to inconsistent transcoder state

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This allows a transcoder to increase their voting power without actually increasing their stake. Proof of Concept The relevant code that uses increaseTotalStakeUncheckpointed and skips transcoder state checkpointing is in the updateTranscoderWithRewards...

When user unbonds before transcoder calls reward, then cumulativeRewardFactor for the round is less than it should be

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When user unbonds before transcoder calls reward, then cumulativeRewardFactor for the round is less than it should be. As result other delegators loose rewards. Proof of Concept Each round transcoder can call reward function in order to claim reward toke...

An attacker can manipulate the total active stake before calling reward() to get more rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Attackers could drain rewards meant for other transcoders. Proof of Concept The key vulnerable code is in the reward function: This uses the transcoder's total stake earningsPool.totalStake and the total active stake currentRoundTotalActiveStake to...

The order of decreasing total stake for the old delegate and increasing for the new delegate could lead to issues if one reverts but not the other.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept The potential issue is: decreaseTotalStake succeeds in decreasing the old delegate's stake increaseTotalStake reverts and does not increase the new delegate's stake This would incorrect...

.The _newPosPrev/_newPosNext hints do not fully prevent invalid ordering when decreasing a delegate's stake.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract could incorrectly deactivate or reward transcoders based on the invalid pool order. Proof of Concept When decreasing a delegate's stake with decreaseTotalStake, the contract calls transcoderPool.updateKey to update the delegate's position in...

The bond manager contract does not properly zero out the transcoder's cumulative rewards/fees between rounds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact transcoder's cumulative rewards and fees can continue accumulating from previous rounds, instead of resetting each round. This means a transcoder could claim portion of rewards/fees that it should not be entitled to. Proof of Concept This only resets the...

Vulnerability in the increaseTotalStake() call happening before deleting the lock in the processRebond() function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This can allow double claiming of stake if the user tries to rebond again with the same lock ID. Proof of Concept The main points: • del.bondedAmount is increased before the lock is deleted • increaseTotalStake is called after deleting the lock If...

World’s Largest Cryptocurrency Casino Stake Hacked for $41 Million

By Deeba Ahmed Ethereum Network Stake Loses $41 Million Worth of Crypto After Private Key Leak. This is a post from HackRead.com Read the original post: Worlds Largest Cryptocurrency Casino Stake Hacked for $41 Million...

Users can vote infinitely via delegation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary GaugeControllervoteforgaugeweights is designed to allow users to vote for gauge rewards based on the amount of $CANTO they have locked in the VotingEscrow contract. VotingEscrow includes functionality for users to delegate their voting power to another...

M-05 Unmitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-05: Issue NOT mitigated Mitigated issue M-05: Virgin stake can claim all drops Fix: code-423n4/2023-05-xeth@aebc324 The issue is that if dripping is enabled when totalSupply == 0 the entire amount dripped will immediately accrue to the first...

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...

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...

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...

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...