[MEDIUM] ARCDVestingVault#deposit and NFTBoostVault#_lockTokens- Unsafe transferFrom function is not properly invoked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The use of transferFrom in the ARCDVestingVaultdeposit and NFTBoostVaultlockTokens functions presents a risk of erroneous token transfers. The transferFrom function doesn't perform necessary validations e.g. validate the returned bool in case of failure,...

treasury approveSmallSpending, approveMediumSpend and approveLargeSpend and setThreshold and setGSCAllowance can be frontrunned

Lines of code Vulnerability details Line of code: Impact treasury approveSmallSpending, approveMediumSpend and approveLargeSpend can be frontrunned Proof of Concept the AracheTreasury, there are three spending relate function: approveSmallSpend, approveMediumSpend, approveLargeSpend both of these...

A whale can DoS the token service by reaching flowlimit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Clients can't transfer tokens between chains because the flow limit is reached. Proof of Concept In FlowLimit.sol:addFlow, we revert if current flowToAdd + flowAmount flowToCompare + flowLimit: uint256 flowToAdd; uint256 flowToCompare; assembly flowToAdd...

Interchain token transfer can be Dossed Due To Flow Limit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A large token holder can send back and forth tokens, using the flow limit to the capacity in start of every epoch making the system unusable for everyone else. Proof of Concept Interchain tokens can be transferred from one chain to another via the token...

InterchainTokenService.expressReceiveTokenWithData does not apply Check-Effect-Interaction mode

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact InterchainTokenService.expressReceiveTokenWithData does not apply the Check-Effect-Interaction pattern. In some edge cases, the caller can lose funds. Proof of Concept The life cycle of sending token across chains contains 3 phases: //P1: launch on sourc...

Potential Reversion in Transfer due to LSP1 Interface Support Check

Lines of code Vulnerability details SORRY I HAVFE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED THIS ISSUE WITHOUT THE FIX... FIRST TIME WARDEN FORGIVE ME Impact The transfer function in LSP7DigitalAssetCore & LSP8DigitalAssetCore includes a mandatory hook, notifyTokenSender, which verifies if the sender supports...

Pending owner can be the wrong recipient of ownership

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can call the acceptOwnership function with their address as the pending owner before the legitimate pending owner has a chance to call the function Proof of Concept The transferOwnership function allows the current owner to set a pending owne...

withdrawReserve will revert when withdrawing tokens with on chain tx fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function will revert when reserve is equal to amount, when the token being transferred is a fee on transfer token. Proof of Concept function withdrawReserve address to, uint104 amount external onlyDrawManager function withdrawReserve address to, uint104...

Attacker can steal vault funds through the deposit function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the deposit function, a check is made to see if the amount of assets being deposited by the user is greater than the amount of assets the vault currently holds. The vault then transfers the difference between the assets being deposited and the vault’s...

Potential Reversion in Transfer due to LSP1 Interface Support Check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The transfer function in LSP7DigitalAssetCore & LSP8DigitalAssetCore includes a mandatory hook, notifyTokenSender, which verifies if the sender supports INTERFACEIDLSP1. However, if a token owner who initially implemented LSP1 interface ceases to support...

Incorrect amount of tokens is transferred before updating the accumulator and emitting the ContributePrizeTokens event

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can call the contributePrizeTokens function with a lower amount of tokens than claimed, misleading the contract to update the accumulator and emit the event based on the incorrect amount. As a result, the prize pool's internal state will be...

Failed transfer with low level call could be overlooked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Transfers may fail silently. Proof of Concept According to the Solidity docs: "The low-level functions call, delegatecall and staticcall return true as their first return value if the account called is non-existent, as part of the design of the EVM...

Token holders can create as many proposals as they want if they already have an active proposal by transferring their token to another wallet.

Lines of code Vulnerability details The propose function on NounsDAOV3Proposals.sol has a check called checkNoActivePropds, msg.sender, which exists to prevent token holders from spamming the propose function. Furthermore, the proposeOnTimelockV1 function calls propose directly, making it...

the swapFrom() function allows the Fee On Transfer tokens and _setReserves doesn't revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the protocol supports the fee on transfer tokens and has implemented a special capable function for it and wants to not allow and revert the fee on transfer tokens in normal SwapFrom function as it says in comments of swapfrom function @dev MUST revert i...

Flash loan price manipulation in Well.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Line 214 of Well.sol calculates the price of tokens to tokens in the pool based on the balances at a single point in time. Pool balances at a single point in time can be manipulated with flash loans, which can skew the numbers to the extreme. The single...

Incorrect modification authorization amount

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In a specific scenario, the authorized transfer amount from N-M M0, N0 will cause the user to lose M+N money. This solution is to first change the authorized amount to N-0 and then to 0-M. This is not the best solution suggested by the article, and it is...

Functions don't update after being called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Without updating the reserve or vault value of tokens after calling different functions, the contract may be prone to inconsistent state, security issues, financial implications, and bad user experience. It is important to review and update the reserve...

In VirtualAccount.sol.withdrawERC20(), Transaction revert if the Token does not support 0 value transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In VirtualAccount.sol.withdrawERC20, Transaction revert if the Token does not support 0 value transfer when transferring tokens to recipient address. File: src/ulysses-omnichain/VirtualAccount.sol 31 function withdrawERC20address token, uint256 amount...

Contracts are vulnerable to rebasing accounting-related issues

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Rebasing tokens are tokens that have each holder's balanceof increase over time. Aave aTokens are an example of such tokens. If rebasing tokens are used, rewards accrue to the contract holding the tokens, and cannot be withdrawn by the original depositor...

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...