The seller could stoln the Creator Royalties

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the seller could set their address to get the Creator Royalties Proof of Concept execute == executeFundsTransfer == transferFees for uint8 i = 0; i fees.length; i++ uint256 fee = price feesi.rate / INVERSEBASISPOINT; transferTopaymentToken, from,...

Buyers will lose an amount of their funds for only one ERC115 token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact By using StandardPolicyERC1155.sol as a matchingPolicy for the order. The buyer will transfer an amount of funds ETH or WETH for 2 or more tokens, but he will receive only 1 token. Proof of Concept in case the buyer has set Input.Order.amount 1. Let’s sa...

Critical matching policy logic is unenforced

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious order matching. Proof of Concept When being executed two orders are matched using custom matching policies. Certain checks are critical for every order matching. Currently these checks would have to be implemented in the matching policies...

The execution of an order transfers 1 token regardless of Order.amount

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An order can be placed for an arbitrary amount, which is relevant for ERC1155. But when matched and executed only 1 token is transferred. This can lead to problems with accounting for the user, expecting a transfer of Order.amount tokens, potentially wit...

_executeTokenTransfer() can silently fail for malicious ERC721 implementations.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact execute calls executeTokenTransfer to perform the NFT transfer from seller to buyer. The function assumes correct safeTransferFrom functionality and does not check balances. In case of malicious - or poorly designed pausable ERC721 implementations, this...

Amount of ERC1155 tokens transferred is always 1.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a user signs an order to buy multiple ERC1155 tokens the amount of tokens transferred is hardcoded to be 1. This means although they expected to get n number of tokens for the total price of X they only get 1 and pay the total amount of X ETH. Proof...

# Arbitrary send of non protected function may lead into loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Arbitrary send of non protected function may lead into loss of funds Impact Unprotected call to a function sending Ether to an arbitrary address may lead into loss of funds. Proof Of Concept In BlurExchange.sol, method trasnferTo uses an arbitrary user to send...

CVE-2022-41556

A resource leak in gwbackend.c in lighttpd 1.4.56 through 1.4.66 could lead to a denial of service connection-slot exhaustion after a large amount of anomalous TCP behavior by clients. It is related to RDHUP mishandling in certain HTTP/1.1 chunked situations. Use of modfastcgi is, for example,...

PT-2022-37523 · Sendmail · Sendmail

Name of the Vulnerable Software and Affected Versions: sendmail affected versions not specified Description: The issue is related to SMTP session reuse, which can lead to STARTTLS not being used even if it is offered. Recommendations: At the moment, there is no information about a newer version...

netty: control chars in header names may lead to HTTP request smuggling

A flaw was found in Netty, specifically in the netty-codec-http package. This flaw allows unauthorized control characters at the beginning and end of a request, does not follow the specification, and can cause HTTP request smuggling...

netty: control chars in header names may lead to HTTP request smuggling

A flaw was found in Netty, specifically in the netty-codec-http package. This flaw allows unauthorized control characters at the beginning and end of a request, does not follow the specification, and can cause HTTP request smuggling...

Romance scammer deepfakes Mark Ruffalo to con elderly artist

Deepfakes have settled into a groove, as most scam techniques do. It seems most deepfakers have decided to make as much cash as possible from unsuspecting victims instead of doing anything particularly earth-shattering with their technology. One curious twist we may not have seen coming is the...

Node.js 14.x < 14.20.0 / 16.x < 16.16.0 / 18.x < 18.5.0 Multiple Vulnerabilities (July 7th 2022 Security Releases).

The version of Node.js installed on the remote host is prior to 14.20.0, 16.16.0, 18.5.0. It is, therefore, affected by multiple vulnerabilities as referenced in the July 7th 2022 Security Releases advisory. - The llhttp parser in the http module does not correctly parse and validate...

Lack of check for contract existance can cause loss of funds during transfers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current transfers will not check if the to address is for an existing token contract. This can cause loss of funds if an user attempts to make a swap for a tokens added to a pool and destructed later. Proof of Concept TokenA gets added to a pool The...

Swaps could be blocked temporarily

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the swap and swapSupportingFeeOnInputTokens functions the community fee payment is called by the function payCommunityFee. The payCommunityFee will fail if the vault address is 0x0 and all the swap will be reverted by the safeTransfer. The...

After a swap, user can lose input token amount while receiving no output token amount when output token becomes non-existent

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When calling the swap function below, the following safeTransfer function is further called for transferring the corresponding value of token from the pool to the recipient. Note that safeTransfer does not check for the existence of the token contract...

Minting LP for a token pair that contains a fee on transfer token will cause partial loss of funds for other token in pair

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Partial loss of funds for other token in pair with fee on transfer token Proof of Concept AlgebraPool.solL458-L467 liquidityActual = liquidityDesired; if receivedAmount0 amount0 liquidityActual = uint128FullMath.mulDivuint256liquidityActual,...

AlgebraPool ERC20 Tokens with fee on transfer are not supported

Lines of code Vulnerability details AlgebraPool ERC20 Tokens with fee on transfer are not supported Vulnerability details There are ERC20 tokens that charge fee for every transfer / transferFrom. TransferHelper.safeTransfer relies on ERC20.transfer AlgebraPool.solswap assumes that the received...

Use safeTransferFrom instead of transferFrom for ERC721 transfers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any NFTs can be transferred here, there are a few NFTs here’s an example that have logic in the onERC721Received function, which is only triggered in the safeTransferFrom function and not in transferFrom. Tools Used Solidity Visual Developer of VSCode...

Upgraded Q -> M from 182 [1664281111530]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 182 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L00: Usage of transfer to send eth The transfer function has a fixed gas stipend of 2300. If a contract as well as EOA can call the function, it is advised to use call function instead of transfer. Here are...