Users will get a low amount of NFT if they try to buy a lot of them

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If user calls buyamount with a value larger than uint48 it will overflow during casting identical to amount = amount % typeuint48.max and cause unexpected behavior for the user. When a user pays a lot of money for a large amount of NFT, but instead they...

underflow in the getPrice() function can block the buy and refund in the LPDA sale

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LPDA sale the price decrease in values after each second, and when creating the sale the value of the lowest price possible is not checked, so the price could go below zero at a given timestamp which will lead to an underflow in the getPrice...

overflow in buy function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the function doesn't check if the input is more the supply Proof of Concept the function doesn't have any condition check of amount Tools Used manually Recommended Mitigation Steps check the input for maximum or requirement for max supply --- The text wa...

LPDA refund logic is broken, meaning buyers always get lowest price sale

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol intends the LPDA to refunds buyers with the difference between the price they paid and the last sale price Once the sale has ended, the users must call refund to get their Ether refunds based on their purchase price and lowest sale price 99:...

LAST PRICE DUTCH AUCTION SALE (LPDA) CAN BE EXPLOITED

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function logic of buy in LPDA.sol can be exploited by shrewd buyers to achieve the lowest finalPrice possible. Proof of Concept LPDA.solL58-L89 function buyuint256 amount external payable uint48 amount = uint48amount; Sale memory temp = sale;...

Actor can send an arbitrary token when adding liquidity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call addLiquidity directly and can input tokenId, params and data. The data inputs are never checked, so the user can send anything in there. Since the erc20 tokens routed are defined in the data parameter, user could send any token. Since the...

Upgraded Q -> M from #454 [1670445333683]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 454 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑01 Don't use payable.transfer/payable.send The use of payable.transfer is heavily frowned upon because it can lead to the locking of funds. The transfer call requires that the recipient is either an EOA account, or...

Possible double spending issue for PirexERC4626 vault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Solmate's ERC20 does not provide option to increase/decrease allowance, and only option to do so is by setting it via approve - which sets this amount directly. This poses a problem of double spending, when a user want to check current allowance, and bad...

compound could be used by uniswap stakers to maximize fees for AutoPxGmx users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call AutoPxGmx::compound. Hence a staker in the 10000 1% fee uniswap pool can call compound with that pool and take a larger fee from AutoPxGmx users maximizing their gains and griefing users. Proof of Concept fee chooses which uniswap pool to...

PirexERC4626 and PirexGmx doesn't support erc20 tokens with fee on transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details PirexERC4626 and PirexGmx doesn't support erc20 tokens with fee on transfer Vulnerability details There are ERC20 tokens that charge fee for every transfer / transferFrom. Different functions assumes assumes that the received amount is the same as the transfer...

Potential uint underflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Potential underflow if shares is greater than totalSupply Proof of Concept Tools Used Manual review Recommended Mitigation Steps Before the following line, check if totalSupply is greater or equal to shares --- The text was updated successfully, but thes...

Potential PirexReward's producerTokens's rewardToken unsynced with PirexGmx rewardToken can miss calculate the actual reward for user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Potential PirexReward's producerTokens's rewardToken unsynced with PirexGmx rewardToken can miss calculate the actual reward for user Proof of Concept PirexReward initialization does not include rewardToken initialization for producerTokens. Meanwhile...

Price manipulation can lead to users lossing funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details H Price manipulation can lead to users lossing funds Impact Early malicious user will profit from future users' deposits while future users' will loose funds/value. Proof of Concept An early user can call the deposit function of any of the ERC4626 vaults with...

Slippage protection on AutoPxGmx::compound calls is insufficient and can result in MEV

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The compound method has the amountOutMinimum parameter, which basically serves as the slippage tolerance parameter. The problem is that everywhere in the code where compound is called, the value of amountOutMinimum is just 1 wei, which basicall...

tokenID that is not minted will be stored into the feeRecipient storage

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the original code, tokenID is incremented just after mint function is executed. Afterwards, tokenID is stored into the feeRecipient storage. As a result, tokenID that is not minted will be stored into the feeRecipient storage. Proof of Concept In the...

evm_hooks ignores some important errors

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Some contracts and some Turnstile tokens nfts wll not be able to receive CSR fees forever. Proof of Concept In evmhooks.go, the PostTxProcessing will call h.processEventsctx, receipt to handle Register and Assign events from Turnstile contract first:...

Single-step process for critical ownership transfer/renounce is risky

Lines of code Vulnerability details Single-step process for critical ownership transfer/renounce is risky Impact The following contracts and functions, allow owners to interact with core functions such as: execute, rawExecute and setApproval in OwnableSmartWallet registerKnotsToSyndicate,...

The function _execute could be called externally

Lines of code Vulnerability details Author: rotcivegaf Impact The execute use a modifier to only can called internally, also specified in the documentation of the function: Must be called internally. But this modifier can be pass if a contract call the execute or bulkExecute and in the returnDust...

A malicious user can steal all the excess balance on the pool by calling the execute function with higher amount than the selling amount

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When an order is matched, the Buyer has the option to pay in either ETH, WETH or via the Pool contract. The Exchange smart contract implements a function returnDust which returns the extra ETH to the user, if she overpays. The function is implemented in...

Upgraded Q -> M from #348 [1668468155840]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 348 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 Wrong parameter order inside beforeTokenTransfer in LBtoken::burn call should be beforeTokenTransferaccount, address0, id, amount; --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All...

Direct theft of buyers ETH funds.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Most severe issue: A Seller or Fee recipient can steal ETH funds from the buyer when he is making a single or bulk execution. Direct theft of funds. Additional impacts that can be caused by these bugs: 1. Seller or Fee recipient can cause next in line...

Susceptible to reorg attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When reorg happens, it is possible that the cancelled order by the taker be executed by the maker. Proof of Concept Suppose userA is seller and userB is buyer, seller is maker, and buyer is taker. After some time, userB the buyer cancels the order by...

Recipients Can Steal Remaining ETH from Exchange

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This vulnerability allows recipients to reenter the Exchange contract, stealing remaining ETH. When a batch of orders are matched using the bulkExecute method a malicious recipient of assets may reenter the bulkExecute method, stealing ETH that would've...

deposit and withdraw emit the same event than mint and burn in ERC20 and can affect to Dapps

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Deposit and Withdraw emit the same event than burn and mint than ERC20 so it's not possible to distinguish in a DAPP than deposit and withdraw are not mint or burn and could affect to the DAPP logics. For example, cointracking.info could understand in a...

Use of .transfer()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Note: I realize that this was flagged in the C4udit output, though it seems to believe that it's an ERC20 transfer. The use of transfer to send ETH only forwards 2300 gas to the recipient. This is not enough gas to execute a gnosis safe delegatecall. Fun...

SpigotedLineLib::trade won’t work with tokens with approval race protection (USDT)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept Some tokens e.g. USDT, KNC do not allow approving an amount M 0 when an existing amount N 0 is already approved. This is to protect from an ERC20 attack vector described here. The problem is the code in trade is the following...

L1ERC20Bridge does not have an emergency stop mechanism to pause the bridge in case of any problems found.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Right now, L1ERC20Bridge implements nonReentrant and access control mechanism to improve security. However, there is not any emergency stop mechanism that can be triggered by an authorized account to pause the bridge in case of some problems. It is highl...

Front-running of bid calls

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description There is bid function in the SizeSealed contract. The function accepts the auctionId, which does not contain any information about the auction itself. As a result, transactions of users can be front-runned to enforce them bid for the auction with th...

Return value of ecMul() not checked in encryptMessage()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ecMul returns 1,1 if failed or with invalid parameters. But encryptMessage does not check for the return value of ecMul. If there is mistake of the private key or public key, the encrypted message will be useless and potentially fail the auction. Proof o...

Seller can steal all the bid fund by repeatedly calling finalize()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Bidders' fund will be stolen by malicious seller, they can not get refund. Proof of Concept In finalize, FinalizeData memory data is local, which means in each call, data is re-initialized. By calling finalize multiple times, a malicious seller can get t...

rewardAmount and totalRewardAmount break 18 decimals logic by / UNIT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This leads to wrong calculation in rewardAmount for users who will only receive their rewards 18 times less than the actual amount due to / UINT feeAmount are also affected which leads to loss for the protocol Proof of Concept Tools Used Manual Recommend...

Adversary can cause malicious slashing of operators by creating malicous token and setting gas limit above chain block gas limit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Operators maliciously slashed Proof of Concept A user can create a malicious token that when called by anyone other than themselves and the bridge use an extreme amount of gas. They create a bridge request with a gas limit higher than the block limit. If...

Pseudo randomness is not recommended

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Use of pseudo randomness in chain is not recommended as it can be predicted by anyone, this can affect value in case of minting or withdrawing in some scenarios Proof of Concept Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps Use oracles --- The text was updated...

Users can create beam request for a destination chain without paying a fee.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a user creates a beam request for a destination chain, the user can input zero as a value for gasLimit. With this, the user is able to make the request without paying any fees to Hologram since messagingModule.getHlgFeetoChain, gasLimit, gasPrice;...

MED - Royalty system couples receiving address and collection request address, which may cause marketplaces to not be able to collect.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Royalties are managed in PA1D.sol. Owner configures several addresses which will get percentages of tokens owned by the contract. However, to receive the payout caller must be one of the eligible addresses, or the owner. This is an issue because the...

_payoutToken[s]() is not compatible with ERC20-tokens which revert on zero value transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Payout is blocked. Proof of Concept PA1D.payoutToken and PA1D.payoutTokens call ERC20.transfer to send tokens to a list of payout recipients. Some tokens e.g. LEND revert when transferring a zero value amount. If one of the recipients is to receive a zer...

Insufficient validation in enforcer's OnERC20Received() callback may lead to loss of funds in implementations.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description HolographERC20's onERC20Received is presumably a callback that is called when the Holographer receives tokens. Its implementation is: if isEventRegisteredHolographERC20Event.beforeOnERC20Received requireSourceERC20.beforeOnERC20Receivedaccount,...

Wrong calculation in LBRouter._getAmountsIn.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It calculates the amountsIn wrongly here and the function returns the wrong result. Proof of Concept Currently, getAmountsIn calculates the amountsIn like below. amountsIni - 1 = reserveIn amountOut 1000 / reserveOut - amountOut 997 + 1; As we can see...

Missing input validation can lead to accidental burning of tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Some token transfers do not check that the receiving address is not the zero address. This can lead to an unintended burning of tokens. Proof of Concept 1. Assume Alice uses a web3 frontend to interact with a DAI/USDT pool. 2. Alice wants to swap DAI for...

Volatility update bypassed with small transactions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Volatility, and by extension the fee rate increase due to volatility can be circumvented by starting swaps with a token amount. The volatility is accumulated only at specific intervals, similar to the cumulative number of bins crossed. This is an issue...

Deactivated tiers can still mint reserve tokens, even if no non-reserve tokens were minted.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Tiers in Juicebox can be deactivated using the adjustTiers function. It makes sense that reserve tokens may be minted in deactivated tiers, in order to be consistent with already minted tokens. However, the code allows the first reserve token to be...

NFT Owner can keep add new tiers to increase the NFT supply with no upper limit to dilute the redemption power of the NFT from old tiers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Owern can adjust tiers, adding tiers with no restriction. function adjustTiersJB721TierParams calldata tiersToAdd, uint256 calldata tierIdsToRemove // Add the tiers. if numberOfTiersToAdd != 0 // Record the added tiers in the store. uint256 memory...

Upgraded Q -> M from 207 [1666364300864]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 207 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 Use safeTransferFrom for ERC721 tokens Description As OpenZeppelin recommends, the transferFrom function should not be used for transferring ERC721 NFT tokens and instead the safeTransferFrom function shoul...

Upgraded Q -> M from 889 [1666366016998]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 889 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L-05 safeTransferFrom of VoteEscrowCore does not fully comply ERC721 standard Per , safeTransferFrom needs to throw if the receiver is a contract that does not have the onERC721Received function that returns...

Upgraded Q -> M from 330 [1666367006171]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 330 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: GolomTrader is not using ERC721 safeTransferFrom when transferring tokens All the functions that fill orders are not using safeTransferFrom when the owner of the NFT transfer the token to the user or contract th...

Upgraded Q -> M from 612 [1666359673078]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 612 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: NC-01 Replace assembly chainid with Solidity's chainId Description Retrieving the current chain id via the Yul chainid expression can be replaced with the Solidity native call to chainId. Findings...

Iterations over all tiers in recordMintBestAvailableTier can render system unusable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact JBTiered721DelegateStore.recordMintBestAvailableTier potentially iterates over all tiers to find the one with the highest contribution floor that is lower than amount. When there are many tiers, this loop can always run out of gas, which will cause some...

Upgraded Q -> M from 873 [1666362235337]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 873 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: Avoid payableaddress.transfer GolomTraderpayEther uses payableaddress.transfer to send native ETH. It's considered a best practice to avoid this pattern for ETH transfers, since it forwards a fixed gas stipend...

Upgraded Q -> M from 220 [1665830289014]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 220 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

USE SAFEERC20 (SAFEAPPROVE/SAFEMINT/SAFETRANSFERFROM) INSTEAD OF APPROVE/MINT/TRANSFER FROM

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The classic openzepplin implementation of the ERC20 standard ie. functions : Approve, Transfer, TransferFrom and mint does not capture the fact that some ERC20 token do not return a boolean value eg. BNB, USDT, OMG. As results, these functions won't work...