double user token spending in function executeBuyWithCredit() contract transfer user wETH fund for wETH orders even when user send payment as ETH to contract and contract converted it to wETH (_depositETH() and _delegateToPool() takes user funds when user sends ETH and tries to buy WETH order)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when user wants to buy NFT tokens with wETH asset, and he/she sent ETH to executeBuyWithCredit or executeBatchBuyWithCredit, code would take user tokens two times, one as ETH token in depositETH and one as wETH tokens in delegateToPool so users would pay...

revokeApproval() only work with WETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can invoke execute successfully even if revokedApprovalmsg.sender == true Proof of Concept If buyer did invoke revokeApproval it only block matching the orders if paymentToken == WETH but if the paymentToken == address0 the buyer could invoke execut...

Some users won't be able to burn their crowdfund token to get their voting power

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User which is a contract who doesn't have a receive function can't burn his token to get the governance power, because ethOwed ether are transferred to him. This is correct even if ethOwed is 0. Tools Used Manual audit Recommended Mitigation Steps Consid...

Refund Address can forcefully receive WETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In AxelarDepositService.sol , the refundAddress could forcefully receive WETH instead of the refundToken when calling any of the 3 functions refundTokenDeposit , refundNativeDeposit and refundNativeUnwrap. This is possible by due to // Allowing only the...

Anyone can receive tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As long as there is token balance or WETH in ReceiverImplementation contract, anybody can receive tokens or weth by making a call to AxelarDepositService.nativeUnwrap with their address as recipient Tools Used Manual review Recommended Mitigation Steps...

Upgraded Q -> M from 270 [1657580410834]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 270 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 6.L- Admin config ProtocolFee and gasFee missing max amount check which can be used to take fund from user With PROTOCOLFEEBPS 10000 more than 100%, the exchange can steal user WETH who might approve max WETH...

Problems with the access control of the fillOrder() function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. fillOrder does not check order.maker ! = caller, which means that mintorder.maker, uint256orderHash; & mintmsg.sender, positionId; can mint NFT to the same person and therefore may create unintended...

Doesn’t check order.baseAsset.code when exercising call order

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is safe to check order.baseAsset.code.length and token.code.length in fillOrder and transferERC20sIn. Because SafeTransferLib doesn’t check whether the erc20 token is actually a contract. /// @dev Note that none of the functions in this library check...

Admin Can Broke All Functionality Through Weth Address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact On the protocol, almost all functionality is constructed through WETH address. however, If the admin is set to WETH address mistakenly, user could not claim through . Admin can break the protocol. Proof of Concept Tools Used Code Review Recommended...

Users may lose funds due to ignored return value of transfer()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The return value of WETH transfer in is unchecked. So if the transfer fails, it continues to L1386 which returns 0 to compAccruedholdersj in L1370 there by resetting the compAccrued of the holder to zero. With this, the user would lose funds. Proof of...

Upgraded Q -> M from 18 [1656705908645]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 18 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: Controlled swapRouter The FeeBurner contract sets the swapperRouter in the addressProvider, so the owner can set any type of swapper, paths or pools, even malicious ones. Since there is no slippage defined in the...

No withdrawal possible for ETH TOKE pool

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The withdraw function of the ETH Tokemak pool has an additional parameter asEth. This can be seen in the Tokemak Github repository or also when looking at the deployed code of the ETH pool. Compare that to e.g. the USDC pool, which does not have this...

getWETHAddress() returns wrong address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The hardcoded return value is the address of COMP token in mainnet not of WETH in getWETHAddress. grantCompInternal function depends on this return value which will cause unintended issues. Proof of Concept function grantCompInternaladdress user, uint...

WETH.totalSupply() returns wrong result.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact WETH.totalSupply returns wrong result. I can't find other contracts that use this function but WETH.sol is a base contract and it should be fixed properly. Proof of Concept WETH.balanceOf just returns a balance of a specific address and totalSupply must ...

Incorrect hard coded value for WETH address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact getWETHAddress still relies on same Comp hard coded address. Unless WETH address is deployed to an address identical to Comps original address the grantCompinternal function wont work or in a pessimistic scenario an attacker might deploy a malicious toke...

attacker steals funds from the weth contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details attacker steals funds from the weth contract 1.Attacker has balance of 1 weth 2.Attacker calls withdraw with 1 weth 3.Transfer is called to fallback function in attacker contract 4.Attacker Fallback function sends 1 ether to the weth fallback function 5. It...

Admin can set arbitrarily high WETH_TRANSFER_GAS_UNITS which is a fee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can lose their fund by attack from the admins Poc In the function updateWethTranferGasInfinityExchange.sol there is no limit for setting WETHTRANSFERGASUNITS . As this is a kind of fee paid by from the buyers to the contract By definition of the...

Incorrect calculation of startGasPerOrder will cause fund loss to the buyer of the last order due to mischarged gas cost

Lines of code Vulnerability details uint256 gasCost = startGasPerOrder - gasleft + wethTransferGasUnits tx.gasprice; When the orders are matched by the MATCHEXECUTOR, the gas cost of each order is paid by the buyer in WETH, the amount gasCost is calculated based on startGasPerOrder, gasleft and...

Protocol can steal WETH founds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol can steal WETH founds with the refunds gas cost mechanism in the functions matchOneToOneOrders, matchOneToManyOrders and matchOrders This functions can call only by the MATCHEXECUTOR but we don't know what is this contract/address according...

YearnCurveVaultOperator's depositETH can leave the remainder ETH funds frozen and unaccounted for, then utilized by another caller

Lines of code Vulnerability details depositETH effectively do not control the utilization of input token and can freeze WETH input funds in native ETH form on the contract balance when Yearn pool doesn't perform liquidity addition for any reason. Due to presence of the additional WETH - ETH step,...