Reentrancy Vulnerability: The contract inherits from the ReentrancyGuard contract, which smay be vulnerable to reentrancy attacks if not properly handled in the contract's logic.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The impact of the reentrancy vulnerability in the incrementGaugeWeight function can be summarized as follows: Loss of Funds: Attackers can drain funds from the contract or manipulate balances. Unexpected State Changes: Manipulation of variables can lead ...

If a STRATEGY TOKEN is "Toggled off" STRATEGIES will still be able to withdraw but returning of tokens with replenishReserves will be disabled.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact BranchPort.manage allows a registered Strategy to withdraw certain amounts of enabled strategy tokens. It validates access rights ie. if called by a strategy registered for the requested token. It however doesn't check if the token itself is currently...

Incorrect Use of Equality Operator in addPartner and addVault Functions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The addPartner and addVault functions in the PartnerManagerFactory contract are intended to add new partner managers and vaults respectively. These functions also assign a unique ID to each new partner manager and vault by storing them in the partnerIds...

No target price check performed for external oracles

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact readMint and readBurn do not check the price of returned assets against the target price, this check is only performed for Chainlink Oracles. Therefore, external oracles can report an arbitrarily price that will be accepted by the protocol and any oracle...

Liquidity providers may lose funds when initialising a strategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Liquidity providers may lose funds when initialising a strategy Vulnerability Detail Liquidity providers may lose a portion of provided liquidity in either of the pair tokens when creating a new position. The init function on TalosBaseStrategy.sol does...

_voteSucceeded and proposals give opposite result

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LybraGovernance contract, the voteSucceeded function returns true if supportVotes1 supportVotes0. At the same time in the proposals function supportVotes0 is returned as forVotes and supportVotes1 is returned as againstVotes. This could suggest,...

distributeRewards can revert because of the too strict slippage check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The report highlights that the distributeRewards function can revert due to a strict slippage check. The provided proof of concept demonstrates the issue, where the slippage is set to 98%, leading to potential transaction failures. Proof of Concept...

Voting period hardcoded to 3 blocks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Here in the Governance contract, the voting period is locked to 3 blocks. function votingPeriod public pure override returns uint256 return 3; function votingDelay public pure override returns uint256 return 1; This is a direct bug because if we take a...

Getting exchange rate function is wrong

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Unmatched function for getting the exchange rate can lead to being unable to mint PeUSD when depositing ETH into Rocket Pool. Proof of Concept The interface used in LybraRETHVault.sol for getting the exchange rate does not match the target contract RETH...

Potential Unauthorized Flash Loan Execution and Share Burning due to Lack of Permission Checks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The executeFlashloan function in the provided contract allows any user to execute a flash loan on behalf of another user without explicit permission. This could potentially lead to an unauthorized execution of flash loans and unexpected share burnings if...

proposals view function returns wrong voting results

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Even though, the votes are calculated correctly, the proposals view function returns wrong voting results returning forVotes results as againstVotes amount. This would negatively impact the users...

Exploit for Deserialization of Untrusted Data in Spip

Installation et Exécution du script 💻 Prérequis Avant de...

Ticket Booking Script 1.8 Cross Site Scripting

┌┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ││ C r a C k E r ┌┘ ┌┘ T H E C R A C K O F E T E R N A L M I G H T ││ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘┘ ┌──── From The Ashes and Dust Rises An...

Event Booking Calendar 1.8 Cross Site Scripting

┌┌───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┐ ││ C r a C k E r ┌┘ ┌┘ T H E C R A C K O F E T E R N A L M I G H T ││ └───────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘┘ ┌──── From The Ashes and Dust Rises An...

Mars: Stored XSS + CSRF in "apellido" value

A stored cross-site scripting and cross-site request forgery vulnerability was discovered in the "apellido" value of a user profile updating form, allowing unauthorized changes to be made to user accounts...

jenkins-2-plugin: pipeline-utility-steps: Arbitrary file write vulnerability on agents in Pipeline Utility Steps Plugin

A flaw was found in the Jenkins Pipeline Utility Steps Plugin. This flaw allows a remote, authenticated attacker to traverse directories on the system, caused by improper archive file validation. The attacker can use a specially crafted archive file containing "dot dot" sequences /../ to create o...

Lack of input validation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no input sanitizer implemented for the transfertypes.FungibleTokenPacketData data variable. Proof of Concept After "unmarshaling" the packet, which checks if there is an error, it is used right away without further checking the fields inside it,...

Missing store revert in case of swap error can lead to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The module is expected to have no state changes in case a swap failed, and continue to the conversion phase. It was implemented by swallowing the error with a log and continuing with the flow erc20 conversion, etc. This is the relevant code section:...

Lack of deep validation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The validate functions are just checking the parameters type without checking any further information Proof of Concept They are just trying to cast the value with i.TYPE and check if there is an error. There is no further validations e. g...

An error could lead to coins not being returned to user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function swapCoins does check that SendCoins does receive them correctly here but not when sending them to the user here Proof of Concept If there is an error returning the swapped coins to the user, they will remain locked. There is no history of...