Malicious user can steal other user's deposits from Vault.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the Vault.withdraw function is called, a maximum of typeuint96.max shares are being burnt subsequently: Vault.withdraw- Vault.withdraw- Vault.burn burns uint96shares, see Vault.sol line 1139. A malicious user can exploit this in the following way: 1...

The NounsDAOLogicV3.sol contract has a receive function but no withdraw function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact All Ether sent to the NounsDAOLogicV3.sol will be locked in the contract because it implements a receive function without a withdraw function. Proof of Concept The NounsDAOLogicV3.sol contract implements the receive function but does not have a withdraw...

If a STRATEGY TOKEN is "Toggled off" STRATEGIES will still be able to withdraw but returning of tokens with replenishReserves will be disabled.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact BranchPort.manage allows a registered Strategy to withdraw certain amounts of enabled strategy tokens. It validates access rights ie. if called by a strategy registered for the requested token. It however doesn't check if the token itself is currently...

StRSR.withdraw can be blocked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact StRSR.withdraw can be blocked for user by changing basket's asset to IFFY status. User will not be able to withdraw and his funds can be seized later. Proof of Concept StRSR.withdraw function allows user to withdraw only, when basketHandler.isReady. And...

User with large stacked ETH can deny other stacker from withdrawing.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The withdraw flow of Stader splitted in two steps, first the user has to requestWithdraw by passing his owned ETHx amount which add a new record to userWithdrawRequestsnextRequestId, second, finalizeUserWithdrawalRequest got called by any user to...

Tokens can be lost when trying to deposit in SDCaollateral.depositSDAsCollateral() or trying to withdraw SDCaollateral.withdraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Some tokens do not return the success of the token submission. Because Since we don’t know for sure how the SD token is implemented, we need to take this into account. Proof of Concept A detailed example is listed in: Tools Used Manual audit Recommended...

Users can withdraw more funds if the party has tokens with multiple addresses.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can withdraw more funds if the party has tokens with multiple addresses. Proof of Concept Users can burn their party NFTs and take the share of the party's funds. function rageQuit uint256 calldata tokenIds, IERC20 calldata withdrawTokens, address...

transfer() method can lead to re-entrancy attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract in scope has a withdraw function namely ‘uniswapV3SwapCallback’ which sends funds to the calling address. The calling address can be a malicious contract. Currently transfer sends more gas than 2300 creating a potential attack vector for...

Inconsistent check for LP balance in AMO

Lines of code Vulnerability details Inconsistent check for LP balance in AMO While pulling LP tokens from the CVXStaker contract, the AMO queries the current available balance using the staked balance, which is inconsistent with the implementation of the withdraw function. Impact Curve LP tokens...

Reappearance of M-02 in SafEth.unstake()

Reappearance of M-02 in SafEth.unstake Description The changes in SafEth.unstake has introduced a new issue parallel to the one present in SfrxEth.withdraw which was reported in M-02: sFrxEth may revert on redeeming non-zero amount, i.e. SafEth.unstake may revert as a consequence of a valid call ...

Mitigation Confirmed for H-06

MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED MITIGATION IS NOT CONFIRMED Mitigation of H-06: Issue not mitigated Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings588 Comments Issue H-06 describes the potential problems of assuming a peg of stETH to ETH. The sponsor proposed a mitigation to fetch the price of...

Mitigation of M-12: Issue NOT mitigated

Mitigated issue M-12: No slippage protection on stake in SafEth.sol There were issues with either a lack of slippage protection or a hard set slippage. Slippage protection was missing in deposit for Reth.deposit only if depositing in the Rocket Pool and in Reth.withdraw, as well as in stake becau...

Mitigation of M-06: See comments

Mitigation of M-06: See comments Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-03-asymmetry-findings770 Comments Sponsor decided not to mitigate the issue with the following comment: This is as expected I agree that the issue is TOO broad and some of the described scenarios don't make sense at all e.g. the...

[H-06] Double-entrypoint collateral token allows position owner to withdraw underlying collateral without repaying ZCHF

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Position::withdraw is intended to allow the position owner to withdraw any ERC20 token which might have ended up at position address. If the collateral address is passed as argument then Position::withdrawCollateral is called to perform the necessary...

Dangerous use of setVirtualReserves(), withdraw(), and execute() leads to incorrect configuration of PrivatePool

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function setVirtualReserves allows arbitrary changes to the values of virtualBaseTokenReserves and virtualNftReserves, which determine the price of the NFT trade in the pool. However, the real balance of tokens or ether in the pool is not checked, so...

Incorrect parameter in withdraw function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An incorrect parameter is used in the withdraw function in SfrxEth.sol. The amount variable is used when the frxEthBalance variable should be used to calculate minOut. The amount that gets swapped at the FRXETHCRVPOOLADDRESS is the frxEthBalance, not the...

Derivative Pool Issue can Lead to Loss User Funds when Unstaking

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In all withdraw functions of derivatives, there is no check for sending zero Ether back to the safEth contract. It is important to note that the addressmsg.sender.callvalue: 0"" function returns true even when transferring a zero value. On the other hand...

Incorrect minOut calculation in SfrxEth.withdraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Final value of mintOut will be lower or higher according to the SFRXETH/FRXETH price ratio. This can result in higher slippage where user can loss funds. Else in other case the slippage will be low and transaction gets reverted unexpectedly Proof of...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #88 [1679874664641]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 88 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-6 Spamming deposit and withdraw queues --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #773 [1679568911031]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 773 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: LACK OF SLIPPAGE PROTECTIONS FOR EOA IN FUNCTIONS LIKE ReaperVaultERC4626.deposit, ReaperVaultERC4626.mint, ReaperVaultERC4626.withdraw, AND ReaperVaultERC4626.redeem --- The text was updated successfully, but these...