CVE-2026-30873

OpenWrt Project is a Linux operating system targeting embedded devices. In versions prior to both 24.10.6 and 25.12.1, the jpgettoken function, which performs lexical analysis by breaking input expressions into tokens, contains a memory leak vulnerability when extracting string literals, field...

EUVD-2018-4013

Malware in sbrugna...

EUVD-2020-9683

Malware in sbrugna...

EUVD-2022-3433

Malicious code in bioql PyPI...

CVE-2025-56207

A security flaw in the 'transfer' function of a smart contract implementation for Money Making Opportunity MMO, an Ethereum ERC721 Non-Fungible Token NFT project, allows users or attackers to transfer NFTs to the zero address, leading to permanent asset loss and non-compliance with the ERC721...

PT-2024-29656

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions biscuit-rust affected versions not specified Description The issue concerns biscuit-rust, the Rust implementation of Biscuit, an authentication and authorization token for microservices architectures. A third-party block request forged by a...

GO-2024-2891 evmos allows transferring unvested tokens after delegations in github.com/evmos/evmos

evmos allows transferring unvested tokens after delegations in github.com/evmos/evmos...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #49 [1704028025372]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 49 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-05 Some tokens revert on 0 amount transfer ParticlePositionManager::liquidatePosition: File: protocol/ParticlePositionManager.sol 376: // reward liquidator 377: TransferHelper.safeTransfercloseCache.tokenFrom,...

Some tokens may revert when zero value transfers are made

Lines of code 356, 371, 145, 272, 252, 116, 445, 374, 506, 488https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tap-token-audit/blob/59749be5bc2286f0bdbf59d7ddc258ddafd49a9f/contracts/options/TapiocaOptionBroker...

Contracts are vulnerable to fee-on-transfer accounting-related issues

Lines of code 359, 448, 509, 530, 42, 797, 162 Vulnerability details The functions below transfer funds from the caller to the receiver via transferFrom, but do not ensure that the actual number of tokens received is the same as the input amount to the transfer. If the token is a fee-on-transfer...

_safeMint() should be used rather than _mint() wherever possible

Lines of code 139, 178, 204 Vulnerability details mint is discouraged in favor of safeMint which ensures that the recipient is either an EOA or implements IERC721Receiver. Both OpenZeppelin and solmate have versions of this function. In the cases below, mint does not call...

Liquidation is not possible if trader blacklisted from blacklistable ERC20 token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a trader is blacklisted from a blacklistable ERC20 token while has an open position, it may not be possible to liquidate the position. Proof of Concept When liquidate position, it will eventually calculate the amount of token that need to be send to...

Contracts are vulnerable to fee-on-transfer accounting-related issues

Lines of code 359, 448, 509, 530, 42, 797, 162 Vulnerability details The functions below transfer funds from the caller to the receiver via transferFrom, but do not ensure that the actual number of tokens received is the same as the input amount to the transfer. If the token is a fee-on-transfer...

Ocean cannot _mintBatch() as onERC1155BatchRecieved() not implemeneted on the Ocean contract when batch transferring to itself

Lines of code Vulnerability details The comment @ Ocean L348 states: The Ocean never initiates ERC1155 Batch Transfers. This is untrue, note the following callstack: Ocean.doMultipleInteractions | Ocean.forwardedDoMultipleInteractions Ocean.doMultipleInteractions calls mintBatch @ L560...

Fee on transfer tokens are not accounted for in any way

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Fee on transfer or other unique tokens are not properly accounted for. This could lead to wrong accounting within The Ocean and eventual losses for the protocol. Proof of Concept The Ocean doesn't keep track of its balances when a user is wrapping a toke...

Some tokens may revert when zero value transfers are made

Lines of code 356, 371, 145, 272, 252, 116, 445, 374, 506, 488https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tap-token-audit/blob/59749be5bc2286f0bdbf59d7ddc258ddafd49a9f/contracts/options/TapiocaOptionBroker...

Not enough check for getPriceAndFee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Edge cases for getPriceAndFee can cause incorrect price to be returned and in turn cause incorrect tokens to be sent to the user. This can occur in the buy and sell function. Proof of Concept In the buy function the function getBuyPrice is called through...

No way to withdraw from the strategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact NodeDelegator does not have any functions to withdraw the underlying from the strategy. It does have a function to transfer ERC-20 tokens to the LRTDepositPool, assuming the eigen layer strategy mints ERC20 tokens to represent the share of invested funds...

Vulnerability in Token Withdrawal Function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Flawed logic in token withdrawal function allows for selective withdrawal of high-value tokens and fails in single-token scenarios. // Sum up total amount of each token to withdraw. uint256 memory withdrawAmounts = new uint256; IERC20 prevToken; for...

Lack of functionality to distribute the yield to the USDe stakers.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User will not get the benefit of the yield which is output of their USDe staking. Outcome of yield is the core feature of staking. we are submitting this as high. Proof of Concept An user who is not black listed is allowed to stake their USDe by calling...