[M] TimeswapV2LiquidityToken.sol#collect() Incorrect implementation causing collect always fail

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function collect in the provided code is supposed to transfer transaction fees from a liquidity token position to a recipient address. However, the function currently has an issue where the long0Fees, long1Fees, and shortFees variables are not...

Upgraded Q -> M from #404 [1674736828553]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 404 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑06 Owner can renounce while system is paused The contract owner or single user with a role is not prevented from renouncing the role/ownership while the contract is paused, which would cause any user assets stored ...

Upgraded Q -> M from #254 [1674418824740]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 254 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 03: Lock.claimGovFees will revert with tokens that have approve race condition protection Some tokens only allow you to approve a new value if the current allowance is set to zero, e.g. USDT. This is not an issue rig...

Upgraded Q -> M from #658 [1674423084300]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 658 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-04 USDT IS NOT SUPPORTED FOR CALLING Trading.handleDeposit FUNCTION ON ETHEREUM MAINNET As shown by , USDT on the Ethereum mainnet does not allow approving a new amount when the existing approved amount is not zero...

Fee on transfer based collateral is not considered.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It has following impacts. 1. backingManager would be transferred with lesser than deposits 2. Recorded liabilities will be more 3. collateral deposited into the RToken contract would be lesser than deposits Proof of Concept Any one can mint RToken by...

Basket range formula is inefficient, leading the protocol to unnecessary haircut

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The BackingManager.manageTokens function checks if there's any deficit in collateral, in case there is, if there's a surplus from another collateral token it trades it to cover the deficit, otherwise it goes for a 'haircut' and cuts the amount of basket...

Inconsistent min deposit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first transfer in a vault that is based on ERC4626Cloned produces different results depending on whether it is done via deposit or via mint. While first deposit produces a number of shares that is 1:1 with the asset, in the case of mint, the results...

Front-run Initializer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In function: function initialize Authority AUTHORITY, ICollateralToken COLLATERALTOKEN, ILienToken LIENTOKEN, ITransferProxy TRANSFERPROXY, address VAULTIMPL, address SOLOIMPL, address WITHDRAWIMPL, address BEACONPROXYIMPL, address CLEARINGHOUSEIMPL...

IRREVERSIBLE SHUTDOWN FUNCTION

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The abstract contract VaultImplementation is inherited by Vault.sol and PublicVault.sol. Its shutdown can be called by the strategist to make loadVISlot.isShutdown = true. This will make the modifier whenNotPaused revert, rendering commitToLien and...

[NAZ-M2] First ERC4626Upgradeable Deposit Exploit Can Break Share Calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ERC4626Upgradeable is an upgradeable version of Solmate's ERC4626 Token. Solmate's convertToShares function follow the formula: assetDepositAmount totalShareSupply / assetBalanceBeforeDeposit. The share price always return 1:1 with asset token. If...

The owner minipool count is not decreased in the case of a staking error

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a node operator creates a new pool or the recreateMinipool function is called the minipool count of the owner is increased by 1 and when the staking ends the multisig calls the recordStakingEnd function which will decrease the owner minipool count b...

SOLMATE SAFETRANSFER AND SAFETRANSFERFROM DOES NOT CHECK THE CODESIZE OF THE TOKEN ADDRESS, WHICH MAY LEAD TO FUND LOSS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reference from a previous Contrest : In uniswapV3SwapCallback and sendPaprFromAuctionFees the safetransfer and safetransferfrom doesn’t check the existence of code at the token address. This is a known issue while using solmate’s libraries. Hence this ma...

Misunderstanding operator with from

Lines of code Vulnerability details Author: rotcivegaf Impact The owner of the ERC721 token could approve an operator to manage his tokens With the misunderstanding of operator with from in the onERC721Received function the benefits of this function goes to the operator instead of the fromowner:...

Reentrancy attack allows to get loan for free

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reentrancy attack allows to get loan for free when startLiquidationAuction is called on last collateral token. Proof of Concept When user has a bad debt, then anyone can start auction for his nft. To purchase token, liquidator can call...

The patch is not sufficient: there is another insidious exploit that can cause the same critical consequences

Lines of code Vulnerability details Status Has been reported to and confirmed by Jeff ENS team Note to the Judge I am not sure whether I should label this as a newly-identified High or a mitigation hard error. The root cause of this issue seems as same as the original report, but this requires us...

Not supporting fee-on-transfer token as base token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Caviar protocol, all calculations in functions add, remove, buy, sell is done using token balance of Pair contract directly. In function add, it calculates and mints LP token to sender first before transferring baseToken in. function adduint256...

Priority queue min accounting breaks when nodes are split in two

Lines of code Vulnerability details The README states If two users place bids at the same price but with different quantities, the queue will pull from the bid with a higher quantity first, but the data-structure used for implementing this logic, is not used properly and essentially has its data...

rejectProposal/rejectActive/cancel did not update pendingBalances

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the OptimisticListingSeaport contract, pendingBalances represents the number of Rae tokens sent to the contract by the user when creating the proposal, which can be withdrawn in the withdrawCollateral function. function withdrawCollateraladdress vault...

Reentrancy issue #1: Functions buy() and add() are vulnerable to reentrancy attack through tokensToSend() hook of ERC777

Lines of code Vulnerability details It is important to be aware that I have reported two reentrancy bugs. Each of these have different ways of being activated and can be found in separate functions. Impact All calculations done in Caviar Pair are using token balance directly. For example, when...

Bids are wrongly ordered when prices and quantities are equal.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In GroupBuy, when total amount of Raes is filled up with purchases, users start competing with higher price offers. Their bids are laid out in a min priority queue structure implemented in MinPriorityQueue.sol. The docs clearly state that when two...

Groupbuy: _verifyUnsuccessfulState and _verifySuccessfulState both can return true when block.timestamp == pool.terminationPeriod

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The functions verifyUnsuccessfulState and verifySuccessfulState should always have a differing behavior with regards to reversion, i.e. when one does not revert, the other should revert. In one condition, this is not true. Namely, when we have pool.succe...

[NAZ-H1] Reentrancy From Use of _safeMint()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The mint function is used to mint a new position NFT and is only callable by minter. This function uses safeMint to mint these position NFTs which has been known in the past to have Reentrancy issues. Proof of Concept The dangers of surprising code by...

Access control for hook function in RedeemHook Contract is inconsistent with the implementation.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Access control for hook function in RedeemHook Contract is inconsistent with the implementation. Since the function involves a transfer of fees to Treasury, I've marked it as MEDIUM RISK RedeemHook checks if sender is in a list of pre-approved accounts i...

Unlimited Global & User Withdrawal right after previous period ends and new period begins

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Checks for Global and User Withdraw Limit Per Period are missing for the first withdrawal request right AFTER period length expires and a new period begins. First withdrawal request amount after period length expires can be way higher than...

Wrong variable is used for the first parameter of depositHook.hook()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Recipient is treated wrongly as sender. Proof of Concept As written here See DepositHook.solL43-L52, the first accepted parameter should be the sender. However, recipient See Collateral.solL53 is passed in here. Tools Used Manual Recommended Mitigation...

POSSIBLE FRONTRUNNING ATTACK ON MINTING LONG/SHORT POSITIONS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact createMarket function in PrePOMarketFactory.sol contract creates a new PrePOMarket contract. Salt is used for creating the contract which is computed from createPairTokens function. Variables passed to this function are visible from anyone they are input...

Owner can rug PrePOMarket using re-initialized finalLongPayout.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In PrePOMarket.sol, the finalLongPayout represents the finalized value of a single long token in the market. It is settled post ICO / IPO according to predetermined rules. The issue is that this value may be re-initialized as many times as owner...

Re-entrancy issue when executing safeTransfer in sweepToken function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the sweepToken function, we don't have a re-Entrancy check which will introduce the token lost by calling sweepToken multiple times during one request. Proof of Concept We don't have any check for the token and the token itself may call back into the...

Upgraded Q -> M from #81 [1670783437328]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 81 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: After carefully reading all submissions related to the use of selfdestruct, I will change my stance on this kind of issue. Changing the severity back to Medium. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors...

Malicious feeReceiver or saleReceiver can steal the user's refund ETH by calling the buy function multiple times in LPDA

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LPDA contract, the fee is transfered to feeReceiver and the totalSale to saleReceiver when newId == temp.finalId, meaning that the amount of tokens that were minted has been reached. However, the call to the internal end function only emits an eve...

NameWrapper: one can renew to DoS a Name

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone with enough eth can make a name impossible to be used anymore Proof of Concept Below is a snippet of the proof of concept. The whole code can be found in this gist. And how to run test is in the comment in the gist. This proof of concept...

Incorrect fee distribution due to reorg

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the PostTxProcessing hook, new events are processed immediately and the addresstokenid mapping is registered to the keeper. The keeper throw an error upon duplicated registration. When there is a chain reorg that changed the registration on the EVM...

ETH can get stuck (and possibly be stolen as well).

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Turnstile contract contains a distributeFees function which can only be called by owner to assign and distribute fee for a tokenId. However the function does not validates the tokenId input value. So it is possible for the owner to provide any uint25...

Native funds on the aggregator contract balance is a free grab

Lines of code Vulnerability details Native funds on the aggregator contract balance is a free grabLooksRareAggregator's execute returns the native balance of the contract to the caller even when nothing was provided with the call. This happens when LooksRareAggregator's execute is called directly...

Malicious seller can steal from bidders.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A seller can cancel the auction after finalize and thus can steal money from the bidders and get their original baseToken back. POC When an auction is started the value of a.data.lowestQuote is set as typeuint128.max here . In the atState function this...

SizeSealed.withdraw will revert on mulDivDown if a.data.lowest is the value zero, which can prevent withdraws for an auction

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The call to mulDivDown on L377 will revert if the third argument denominador is the value zero. See Solmate implementation. It's possible for a.data.lowestBase to receive the value zero, which will prevent the transfers from L381 and L384. Impa...

Casting to uint128 when valiue can exceed uint128.max

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In CommonTokenMath.tokensAvailableAtTime the result is cast to uint128 on line 62. Given that baseAmount close or at it's uint128.max, and cliffPercent is close or at it's max of 1e18 dictated on line 72 in SizeSealed.sol, cliffAmount can reach uint128.m...

Owner can steal all the rewards token from the WardenPledge.sol smart contract and break the internal accounting

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner of the WardenPledge.sol smart contract can steal all the reward tokens from the contract and break the internal accounting. With the recoverERC20 function, the owner can transfer to him/herself the whole balance of the token. The check at L654...

arbitrary send erc20 safeTransferFrom

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact uses arbitrary from in safeTransferFrom when msg.sender is not used as from in safeTransferFrom. Proof of Concept Alice approves this contract to spend her ERC20 tokens. Bob can call a and specify Alice's address as the from parameter in safeTransferFrom...

MEV: Operator can bribe miner and steal honest operator's bond amount if gas price went high

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Operators in Holograph do their job by calling executeJob with the bridged in bytes from source chain. If the primary job operator did not execute the job during his allocated block slot, he is punished by taking a single bond amount and transfer it...

Holograph contracts can be deployed by any user successfully through user-crafted signature and signer input

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact HolographFactory.deployHolographableContract deploys holographable smart contract by accepting config, signature and signer inputs. Due to user input signer passed by the caller, it is possible for signature verification to pass by using the known signer...

PA1D._payoutTokens() won't work for USDT and other inconsistent ERC20 tokens.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Some ERC20 tokens USDT, BNB, OMG do not return a boolean on succesful transfer. Checking the returned value of transfer for these tokens will always fail. Proof of Concept Usage of ERC20 interface and require statement in PA1D.sol. Recommended Mitigation...

_payoutToken[s]() is not compatible with tokens with missing return value

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Payout is blocked and tokens are stuck in contract. Proof of Concept PA1D.payoutToken and PA1D.payoutTokens call ERC20.transfer in a require-statement to send tokens to a list of payout recipients. Some tokens do not return a bool e.g. USDT, BNB, OMG on...

untyped data signing

Lines of code Vulnerability details in function deployHolographableContract the bytes32 hash is directly encoded without adding any domain separator . this will cause several issues an attacker can front run the signature and use them on same contract on another chain . eg a user wants to call...

Duplicated / Split H -> H from 461 [1666620942709]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 461 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In VoteEscrowDelegation contract, the writeCheckpoint internal function has major logic errors which will make the delegate external function to always revert. Proof of...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from 696 [1666361742731]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 696 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L05 - Usage of trasfer over call to send Ether could cause unexpected Reverts payablepayAddress.transferpayAmt; // royalty transfer to royaltyaddress The function payEther sends ether via transfer which passes a...

Upgraded Q -> M from 497 [1666363365064]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 497 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

No withdraw mechanism for eth sent to GraphProxy contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The GraphProxy contract implements receive and fallback functions to receive funds. However, there is no method associated with a user to withdraw his funds which might be sent accidentally to the proxy contract, thus leading to most of the eth locked in...

getOrCreatePosition doesn't work as expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details getOrCreatePosition doesn't work as expected Impact Function getOrCreatePosition doesn't assign any value to positions, it just return the value from some key, leading to incorrect expected values and wrong functionality Proof of Concept function...