Reuse of previous voting difference in extendPledge() charges too much fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In Warden Pledge, creators can extend the life span of an existing pledge using extendPledge. Here's the implementation: uint256 addedDuration = newEndTimestamp - oldEndTimestamp; ifaddedDuration maxTotalRewardAmount revert...

Voting Power double count when the pledge.receiver delegates to their own pledge.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a pledge is created via the createPledge function, the pledge creator is allowed to select the receiver address which will receive the boost delegation. Additionally, targetVotes parametr is selected which is the maximum target of votes the receiver...

FBI and CISA Publish a PSA on Malicious Cyber Activity Against Election Infrastructure

The Federal Bureau of Investigation FBI and CISA have published a joint public service announcement that: Assesses malicious cyber activity aiming to compromise election infrastructure is unlikely to result in large-scale disruptions or prevent voting. Confirms “the FBI and CISA have no reporting...

Airbus AoA – Angle of Attack sensor issue

I read a lot of air incident investigation reports. The aviation industry is a shining example of sharing and learning, resulting in increased safety. I wish that the cyber industry on the ground could find a way to effectively share similar experiences and learnings. Anyway, one report caught my...

CVE-2021-42045

An issue was discovered in SecurePoll in the Growth extension in MediaWiki through 1.36.2. Simple polls allow users to create alerts by changing their User-Agent HTTP header and submitting a vote...

Attackers can mislead users to think they delegated their voting power to them

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The delegation of the voting power in the Crowdfund contract can be changed even after the party is created. If a user changes this delegation, it won't change the actual delegation, which can help attackers to mislead users into thinking they delegated...

Proposer can double spend his votes as many times as he likes, rugging the party

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Proposals are created using PartyGovernance's proposeproposal,.. function, and voted on thereafter using acceptproposalid,…. To make sure users don't vote twice, every proposal has hasVoted mapping to keep note of votes. The number of votes counted...

Attacker can DOS private party by donating ETH then calling buy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Party is DOS'd and may potentially lose access to NFT Proof of Concept Crowdfund.solL280-L298 party = party = partyFactory .createParty addressthis, Party.PartyOptions name: name, symbol: symbol, governance: PartyGovernance.GovernanceOpts hosts:...

Rounding errors can lead to wrong voting power

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The calculation of voting power in Crowdfund.getFinalContribution can lead to loss of voting power due to rounding errors. Tools Used Manual audit --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

splitRecipient resulting voting power tend to be overstated

Lines of code Vulnerability details When burn computes the contributor's share via getFinalContribution and contributor = splitRecipient it transfers the whole share to the splitRecipient in advance, even when not all the voting power were allocated. I.e. some contributors might not burn and the...

Early contributor can always become majority of crowdfund leading to rugging risks.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Voting power is distributed to crowdfund contributors according to the amount contributed divided by NFT purchase price. Attacker can call the buy function of BuyCrowdfund / CollectionBuyCrowdfund, and use only the first X amount of contribution fro...

Governance NFT Voting power can be distributed unfairly after the party purchase the NFT because voting power distribution depends on the contribution NFT burning order

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Voting power can be distributed unfairly after the party purchase the NFT because voting power distribution depends on the contribution NFT burning order. For example, the NFT is purchased at price 1.5...

The voting power cannot be returned deterministically, if there are multiple checkpoints sharing the same timestamp

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Specifically, when writing a checkpoint, the code does not check whether the latest checkpoint is also in the current block. Consider a user makes multiple times of token transfer, the ERC721Votes contract will record multiple checkpoints with the same...

Users could keep increasing the voting weight just by one NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact With only one NFT the user can keep increasing the voting weight on different addresses Proof of Concept 1- let’s say Alice has one NFT 2- he delegate to Bob 3- Alice invoke transferFrom to Richard 4- Richard invoke delegate to Bob So now Bob has two...

ERC721Votes: Token owners can double voting power through self delegation

Lines of code Vulnerability details The owner of one or many ERC721Votes tokens can double their voting power once and only once by delegating to their own address as their first delegation. Scenario This exploit relies on the initial default value of the delegation mapping in ERC721Votes, which ...

NFT flashloan against governance voting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Specifically, to support a proposal, the voting power is counted at the time of the proposal creation time. However, there are multiple services that support NFT flashloan, e.g., NFTuloan . Since the voting power is counted as the proposal creation time,...

Adversary can gain Infinite voting power due to integer overflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Specifically, ERC721Votes enables users to delegate their voting power to others. Note that when delegating the voting power, the actual token balance will not change. On the other hand, when transferring tokens, the voting power transfers accordingly:...

CVE-2022-34656

The CVE-2022-34656 entry concerns the WordPress plugin “wpdevart Poll, Survey, Questionnaire and Voting system” (versions

WordPress plugin wpdevart Poll，Survey，Questionnaire and Voting system 跨站脚本漏洞

WordPress and WordPress plugin are both products of the WordPress Foundation.WordPress is a blogging platform developed using the PHP language. The platform supports setting up personal blog sites on servers with PHP and MySQL.WordPress plugin is an application plugin. A cross-site scripting...

CVE-2022-34656: Improper Neutralization of Input During Web Page Generation

Authenticated admin+ Cross-Site Scripting XSS vulnerability in wpdevart Poll, Survey, Questionnaire and Voting system plugin = 1.7.4 at WordPress...