1295 matches found
CVE-2022-47929 affecting package hyperv-daemons for versions less than 5.15.92.1-1
CVE-2022-47929 affecting package hyperv-daemons for versions less than 5.15.92.1-1. An upgraded version of the package is available that resolves this issue...
CVE-2023-0433 affecting package vim 9.0.1189-1
CVE-2023-0433 affecting package vim 9.0.1189-1. An upgraded version of the package is available that resolves this issue...
CVE-2022-41903 affecting package git 2.23.4-2
CVE-2022-41903 affecting package git 2.23.4-2. An upgraded version of the package is available that resolves this issue...
CVE-2022-37436 affecting package httpd 2.4.54-1
CVE-2022-37436 affecting package httpd 2.4.54-1. An upgraded version of the package is available that resolves this issue...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #525 [1676219014177]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 525 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Upgradeable contract is missing a gap50 storage variable to allow for new storage variables in later versions --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #533 [1676218902616]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 533 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Upgradeable contract is missing a gap50 storage variable to allow for new storage variables in later versions --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #619 [1675724616184]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 619 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-06 In contract Quest the function claim shouldn't only set the receipt as claimed, but to burn it as well. As this problem brings the risk, where users can sell already claimed receipts to other people The function...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #670 [1675726426987]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 670 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-04 Changing rabbitholeReceiptContract in QuestFactory will break currently running quests rabbitHoleReceiptContract must be the same in QuestFactory and Quest contracts for quests to function correctly. If there is...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #621 [1675724705438]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 621 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L2 - mintReceipt function lacks a check to verify if the quest has already ended mintReceipt function missing check for ended quest. This could result in a scenario where a receipt is minted after the quest has ended...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #508 [1675443058277]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 508 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: New address and existing address inputs can be the same in upgradeExistingContract --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #365 [1675443623313]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 365 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-4 Misleading comments - Multisig are still managing pool --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #836 [1675451857205]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 836 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Underflow error when redeeming to 0 after minting some rewards --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #260 [1675460942583]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 260 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L2 Withdrawable minipool can be finished before funds are withdrawn --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #65 [1675444463774]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 65 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Unusual multisig logic --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> 2 from #338 [1675444014859]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 338 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-07 It should be possible to assign Minipool to a new Multisig MinipoolManager.sol 1 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> M from #694 [1675343502331]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 694 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: there is no check that duration of the Minipool is bigger than 14 days and a malicious node runner can set duration as 0 day and if he fails the calculated slash amount would be 0. --- The text was updated...
Upgraded Q -> H from #694 [1675343512989]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 694 as H risk. The relevant finding follows: there is no check that duration of the Minipool is less than 365 days and if user by mistake set very high value for duration and fails to run node properly user would lose very large number of his GGP collaterals...
Upgraded Q -> M from #819 [1675276661349]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 819 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Scenarios 3 & 4 are basically the same and valid. Duplicate of 569 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...
Upgraded Q -> M from #819 [1675276650768]
Judge has assessed an item in Issue 819 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: If we are going with this specific impact, looks like scenario 2 is valid - but does depend on Rialto making that mistake, so would say that is Medium. This is a duplicate, the primary issue being 723 --- The text wa...