No gas payment is done before calling the callContract in the Router.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the Axelar documentation it is specified that before calling callContract or callContractWithToken the user needs to first prepay the relayers gas fee on the source chain, but since the functions are not payable, nor does call...

Relying on string comparisons to determine which parameter to update in the file() function is brittle and could lead to unintended consequences.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This can allow unintentionally changing sensitive state variables Proof of Concept The vulnerability arises because: file relies on a simple string comparison of the what parameter to determine which state variable to update. A developer could accidental...

Compound charges are sent to GeVault, making them potentially vulnerable to theft

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the previous version, the compound fee would be saved in the TokenisableRange before being deposited into LP, and would be deposited into LP after reaching 1%. After reconstruction, the fees are sent directly to GeVault for distribution through getTVL...

test

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates the concept. Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps Assessed...

The onlySeaport is a single point of failure and a centralization risk

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The onlySeaport holds a lot of power within the system, which can compromise the system integrity and it's permission-less nature. Having a single EOA as onlySeaport is a large centralization risk and a single point of failure. A single private key may b...

yryryserywretsh

Lines of code L1 Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates the concept. Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps Assess...

GeVault LP calculations do not use scaling and are vulnerable to deposit attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Currently, getTVL counts all token balances in GeVault, and attackers can manipulate getTVL to implement deposit attacks. Secondly, since the calculation of LP does not use scaling, because there is a precision error in the division, the cost for the...

delegate ID could differ from the expected order hash if the order hash was manipulated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A malicious user could create an order hash that does not match the actual order data. When the delegate token is created, the actualDelegateId will be different than the requestedDelegateId calculated from the manipulated createOrderHash. But the check...

getActiveTickIndex implementation error

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The implementation of getActiveTickIndex is wrong, and the searched ticks do not meet expectations, causing funds to be incorrectly allocated to edge ticks, and there is basically no staking income. Proof of Concept // if base token is token0, ticks abov...

An attacker can use the flashloan function with an invalid collateral asset

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function flashloan - allows delegate token owner or approved operator to borrow their underlying tokens for the duration of a single atomic transaction. The function uses Structs.FlashInfo calldata info as an input parameter. Failure to call...

Unchecked token transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Unchecked token transfer Proof of Concept Since the contract will work with many different ERC721 tokens, and not all of them are based, for instance, on the OZ ERC721 token contract. And some tokens can return False instead of reverting a transaction in...

Incorrect initialization of rUSDY.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact rUSDY.sol contract inherits PausableUpgradeable contract but does not invoke its initialzers during its own initialization. Due to which the state of PausableUpgradeable contract remain uninitialized. File: contracts/usdy/rUSDY.sol contract rUSDY is...

Tokens transferred with bridge can get lost if destination transaction can’t be executed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User could lost his tokens, if tx on destination chain will failrevert. There is no option to recover the tokens on source chain. Revert could be cause by function attachThreshold. This function finds the correspondence between the amount and threshhold...

In the event of a fall in the price of USDY, the withdrawal of funds for the user may be blocked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a wrap function called by users to wrap their USDY tokens . In the future, to withdraw tokens, the user calls the unwrap function . However, in the unwrap function, the user can have more funds in case the price of USDY falls. Based on the case...

Precision Error in getPrice due to Omission of Last Day's Interest

Lines of code Vulnerability details The code attempts to calculate the price based on the interest from the previous day by using range.end - 1. However, if the last day represented by range.end has fully passed, the interest for this day is never taken into account. Over time, these slight...

Loss of token if a smart contract perform a cross-chain transfer using source bridge

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Loss of a token ownership if a smart contract perform a cross-chain transfer using source bridge Proof of Concept When a caller call burnAndCallAxelar, the token is burnt on source chain and the payload is encoded in this way: bytes memory payload =...

Malicious users can manipulate the withdrawRound to withdraw their stake before the unbonding period is over.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Disruption the normal bonding incentives and mechanisms in the protocol. Validators or transcoders could withdrew unexpectedly, preventing governance responses to bonded token changes. Proof of Concept The withdrawStake function first checks if the...

Zero Redemption Amount in RdpxDecayingBonds Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The redeem function, as described, checks whether the assets to be redeemed assets are not zero. This check is in place to ensure that a user isn't redeeming a non-zero amount of rdpxAmount tokens in exchange for zero assets. Such a check is essential to...

A malicious delegator could artificially inflate the deductions for a transcoder, potentially leading to incorrect vote counting.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept In the handleVoteOverrides function, the deductions are added to the transcoder's voter state without any validation: A malicious delegator could call countVote multiple times, each tim...

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...