Router.removeLiquidityExact(uint256,address) has unchecked transfers

Handle heiho1 Vulnerability details Impact Router.removeLiquidityExactuint256,address line 114 does not check the boolean return of a token transfer. This is a brittle implementation because it relies on the boolean return value being hard-coded to true. Tokens may not revert in case of failure a...

safeTransferFrom in TransferHelper is not safeTransferFrom

Handle jonah1005 Vulnerability details Impact A non standard erc20 token would always raise error when calling safeTransferFrom. If a user creates a USDT/DAI pool and deposit into the pool he would find out there's never a counterpart deposit. Proof of Concept TransferHelper does not uses SafeERC...

how to protect for weird erc20 tokens

Handle gpersoon Vulnerability details Impact The protocol only works as expected when the ERC20 tokens are well behaved. If rebasing tokens or malicious token contracts are used then unexpected results can happen. I don't see any code to restrict the tokens or verify the tokens. Proof of Concept...

Transactions nearing block.gaslimit may cause issues

Handle hrkrshnn Vulnerability details transactions nearing block.gaslimit may cause issues A general problem with schemes that require multiple steps and whose inputs are dynamically typed is that: a user may be able to "commit" something, but never "execute" it because the "execute" transaction...

Unchecked return value from ERC20

Handle cmichel Vulnerability details Vulnerability Details The ERC20.transfer and ERC20.transferFrom functions return a boolean value indicating success. This parameter needs to be checked for success. According to the standard the return value must be checked for true, otherwise the transfer wil...

Unchecked ERC20 transfers can cause lock up

Handle axic Vulnerability details Impact Some major tokens went live before ERC20 was finalised, resulting in a discrepancy whether the transfer functions a should return a boolean or b revert/fail on error. The current best practice is that they should revert, but return “true” on success...

Unhandled return value of transferFrom in timeLockERC20() could lead to fund loss for recipients

Handle 0xRajeev Vulnerability details Impact ERC20 implementations are not always consistent. Some implementations of transfer and transferFrom could return ‘false’ on failure instead of reverting. It is safer to wrap such calls into require statements or use safe wrapper functions implementing...

A malicious receiver can cause another receiver to lose out on distributed fees by returning false for tokensReceived when receiveRewards is called on their receiver contract.

Handle janbro Vulnerability details Summary A malicious receiver can cause another receiver to lose out on distributed fees by returning false for tokensReceived when receiveRewards is called on their receiver contract. Risk Rating Medium Vulnerability Details A malicious receiver can cause anoth...

Missing overflow check in flashLoan

Handle @cmichelio Vulnerability details Vulnerability Details ERC20FlashMintUpgradeable.flashLoan does not check for an overflow when adding the fees to the flashloan amount. The functionality might have been copied from but this one already has overflow checks as it uses solidity 0.8.0. Impact...

Attacker can call update_market frequently to halt the increase of secRewardsPerShare

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Attacker can call updatemarket frequently to halt the increase of secRewardsPerShare. Proof of Concept market.secRewardsPerShare += uint128blockDelta 1e18 / marketSupply; // TODO: Scaling Suppose marketSupply is 1e21, then the attacker can call...

NO access control in decreaseAllowance and increaseAllowance

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. NO access control in decreaseAllowance and increaseAllowance.Anyone can call this function and increase or decrease the allowlance. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub...

Loss of Funds for Users Due to Token Purchase after Maximum Supply

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary When the token's total supply reaches its maximum, users lose funds when attempting to buy tokens, as the transaction completes without minting new tokens. Vulnerability Details To engage in the voting system, users must acquire tokens directly from the...

_verifyVoteSignature wrong implementation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. voteHash = keccak256abi.encodeVOTETYPEHASH, from, pieceIds, noncesfrom++, deadline; here we are using noncesfrom++ for calculating voteHash but different from address can have the same noncesfrom++...

Users can avoid liquidation by splitting their positions into smaller ones

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Bad debt creation, as the total sum of positions could yield a signicant underwater position, but they would likely not be liquidated as it wouldn't compensate liquidators. Proof of Concept A recent, random transaction on Mantle shows a gas fee of 0.47...

Liquidator can get higher rate for liquidation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept When position is unhealthy then it can be liquidated. In order to incentivize someone to liquidate positions they receive some extra amount of collateral. This incentive percentage is calculated inside...

The creator does not receive additional ether - it accumulates on the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In some cases, the ERC20TokenEmitter contract may accumulate residual ether that was not sent to the creator. The contract does not have a function to pick up the remaining ether. When a user wants to buy tokens, he sends ether to the...

voteForManyWithSig functions in CultureIndex are open to replay attacks if fails.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If vote fails or reverts for any reason, the nonce in verifyVoteSignature doesn't increment. This leads to the same vote tx being replayed by anyone. Proof of Concept A user submits a vote via voteForManyWithSig, triggering verifyVoteSignature for...

collectLiquidity() Lack of can specify recipient leads to inability to retrieve token1 after entering the blacklist of token0

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details LP has only one way to retrieve token, first decreaseLiquidity, then retrieve through the collectLiquidity method. collectLiquidity only has one parameter, tokenId. function collectLiquidity uint256 tokenId external override nonReentrant...

Return values of transfer()/transferFrom() not checked

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Not all IERC20 implementations revert when there's a failure in transfer/transferFrom. The function signature has a boolean return value and they indicate errors that way instead. By not checking the return value, operations that shou...

_safeMint() should be used rather than _mint() wherever possible

Lines of code 139, 178, 204 Vulnerability details mint is discouraged in favor of safeMint which ensures that the recipient is either an EOA or implements IERC721Receiver. Both OpenZeppelin and solmate have versions of this function. In the cases below, mint does not call...

Return values of transfer()/transferFrom() not checked

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Not all IERC20 implementations revert when there's a failure in transfer/transferFrom. The function signature has a boolean return value and they indicate errors that way instead. By not checking the return value, operations that shou...

Using block.timestamp as the deadline/expiry invites MEV

Lines of code 307 Vulnerability details Passing block.timestamp as the expiry/deadline of an operation does not mean "require immediate execution" - it means "whatever block this transaction appears in, I'm comfortable with that block's timestamp". Providing this value means that a malicious mine...

addRewardToken() does note remove old entries before adding new ones

Lines of code 455, 280, 378, 411 Vulnerability details Each time addRewardToken is called, new entries are added to the array, but doing so does not remove any old entries. By calling the function multiple times, an attacker can can increase their voting power indefinitely, without having to...

Unchecked return value of low-level call()/delegatecall()

Lines of code 120, 141, 411, 184, 160, 189, 152, 444, 625, 638https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapioca-bar-audit/blob/2286f80f928f41c8bc189d0657d74ba83286c668/contract...

Unsafe usage of msg.value in a loop

Lines of code 140 Vulnerability details The value of msg.value in a transaction's call never gets updated, even if the called contract ends up sending some or all of the Eth to another contract. This means that using msg.value in a for- or while-loop, without extra accounting logic, will either...

Withdraws will be bricked if the curve pool gets killed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Liquidity will be locked forever since there is no interface to remove it. Proof of Concept Curve pools have a killed parameter that allows an admin to kill the pool, suspend all deposits, swaps, and single token withdrawals, and then only allow for taki...

CURRENT OWNER OF THE Market.sol CONTRACT CAN RENOUNCE THE OWNERSHIP AND DoS THE onlyOwner MODIFIER CONTROLLED FUNCTIONS IN THE Market.sol CONTRACT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Market.sol contract inherits from the openzeppelin Ownable2Step.sol contract. The Ownable2Step.sol contract inherits from the openzeppelin Ownable.sol contract. There is Ownable.renounceOwnership function which can be called by the current owner to...

payable.transfer() call will result in loss of unused Ether

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact batchContribute function carries out funding and transfer in batches by using the payable.transfer call. This is unsafe as transfer has hard coded gas budget and can fail when the user is a smart contract. This way programmatical usage of batchContribute...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #246 [1699029732469]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 246 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 The tokenURI is not compatible with the ERC721 standard Description function tokenURIuint256 safeId public view override returns string memory uri uri = nftRenderer.rendersafeId; tokenURI will call nftRenderer...

StakedUSDe.totalSupply() may decrease below MIN_SHARES by StakedUSDe.redistributeLockedAmount.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact StakedUSDe runs checkMinShares in deposit and withdraw to keep the totalSupply more than MINSHARES, 1e18. It is to prevent an ERC4626 inflation attack. However, StakedUSDe.redistributeLockedAmountuser, address0 burns all the user's shares and decreases t...

Lender can cause unintended behavior for the borrower's transaction

Lines of code Vulnerability details This vulnerability comes in the form of when a borrower wants to remove a lender as a both deposit and withdraw and set them as a withdraw only, to avoid paying more interest on their funds in the market, this plan may not go as planned, based on the nature of...

Sanctionned funds keep earning APR, and protocol earning fees on these funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a user is sanctioned, if he has a scaledBalance not in the withdrawal queue, calling the nukeFromOrbit function will send sanctioned funds to an escrow contract, and these funds will keep earning APR. This is because when a deposit is executed, the...

Interest accumulation linked to state updates may leak value

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol compounds interest on every call that updates the state. This is an intentional design choice. However, this does mean that the total return for the lender, and, conversely, the cost of debt for the borrower, can be influenced by the frequen...

Introduce minEpoch to prevent withdrawal requests being front-runned

Lines of code Vulnerability details Original Issue M-04: VotiumStrategy withdrawal queue fails to consider available unlocked tokens causing different issues in the withdraw process Issue Details The issue raised above occured whenever there was an unlocked balance which could be used to fulfill...

Null VotiumStrategy deposits revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Deposits which attempt to deposit 0 in VotiumStrategy revert. Proof of concept The issue is similar to H-02: Zero amount withdrawals of SafEth or Votium will brick the withdraw process. Depositing in AfEth might call VotiumStrategy.deposit1 if the ratio ...

TWAP can lead to loss of manipulation of price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are tradeoffs when choosing the length of the period of time to calculate a TWAP. Longer periods are better to protect against price manipulation, but come at the expense of a slower, and potentially less accurate, price. Proof of Concept Both the...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #2037 [1698131784473]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 2037 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑01 Early users can modify the underlying assets’ unit share price Summary: ERC4626, an extension of ERC20, is a standard that is mostly used in yield-bearing tokens. The contract of an ERC4626 token itself is an...

Nonce update

Lines of code Vulnerability details return uint256keccak256abi.encodePackedownersHash, ownerSafeCountownersHash++, salt, VERSION; here ownerSafeCountownersHash++ is used as nonce for different ownerSafeCount mapping if ownersHash is 0 or 1 the mapping will be 0 for the first item.This will cause ...

Deploying a Console to the Same Address Across Different Supported Chains Could Become Impossible

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Brahma, Users can interact with SafeDeployer::deployConsoleAccount to deploy console accounts/wallets. To deploy the wallet to the same address across all supported chains, the user needs to interact with the deployConsoleAccount function on all chain...

checkAfterExecution() function has a design flaw

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact checkAfterExecution function has a design flaw. It may cause some danger problem, such as ,signers can change the threshold of the vault, giving themselves increased control over future transactions and breaking an important trust assumption of the...

OpenZeppelin 's recent v5.0.0 release includes many changes to libraries/contracts that can directly affect ERC20MultiDelegate functionality

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact OpenZeppelin just released v5.0.0, and there happen to be several significant changes that directly affect the ERC20MultiDelegate implementation, directly and indirectly, via packages used and inherited from. Here’s a link to the release: Below is a...

Lack of array length validation in delegateMulti() can lead to errors.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no validation that the sources, targets, and amounts arrays passed to delegateMulti are the same length. This could cause issues with iterating through the arrays. Proof of Concept In the delegateMulti function. function delegateMulti uint256...

Unvalidated ticks in claimConcentratedRewards allow unauthorized users to claim undeserved rewards. Validate ticks.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no check that the ticks passed into claimConcentratedRewards actually match the position's ticks. A user could pass in arbitrary ticks to try to claim rewards for liquidity they don't own. Proof of Concept The claimConcentratedRewards function...

Airdropped Gas will remain in the Agent in case of failure

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol uses LayerZeros Airdrop mechanism to send gas to BridgeAgents which they need to pay for subsequential cross-chain-messages. If the transaction on the receiver fails, this airdropped gas will remain in the BridgeAgent and can be used up by t...

Many issues around addGlobalToken due to lack of input validation when linking a global token to local token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact addGlobalToken is used to add a global token to a branch. The flow as follows: 1 = CoreBranchRouter.addGlobalToken 2 = Send Cross-Chain request System Response/Request with FuncId 0x01 Notice that is uses normal callOut though. Anyway, let's continue...

Rounding error leading to no reward being sent

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Rounding errors could occur if the provided amount is too small, Proof of Concept rewardsToSend += inRangeLiquidityOfPosition concRewardPerWeekpoolIdxweek / overallInRangeLiquidity; uint256 rewardsForWeek = timeWeightedWeeklyPositionAmbLiquidity poolIdx...

Potential Fund Compromise via Malicious Token Insertion

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since any token can be sent to the PrimeLiquidityProvider contract there is a great chance of an attacker sending a scam token with some legit value in it to lure the owner making him sweep those tokens and by doing so compromising the whole contract's...

functions in FixedMath.sol directly converting uint256 arguments to int256 which may overflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact functions in FixedMath.sol directly converting uint256 arguments to int256 which may overflow or return unexpected values Proof of Concept functions in FixedMath.sol like uintDiv , uintMul , toFixed directly converting its arguments from uint256 to int25...

Prime.sol - User can claim Prime token without having any staked XVS, because his stakedAt isn't reset whenever he is issued an irrevocable token.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Whenever a new Prime token is created, the users stakedAt is reset to 0. This happens when the user claim a revocable token and when he is issue a revocable token, but it does not happen when a user is issue an irrevocable token. This is issue function...

Lack of access control and value validation in the reward flow exposes functions to public access

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary Some functions that are part of the Votium reward flow are left unprotected and can be accessed by anyone to spend resources held by the contract. Impact Rewards coming from the Votium protocol are claimed and compounded back in AfEth. This flow consist...