Attacker contract can avoid being blocked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A Malicious attacker can interact with the system and selfdestruct his own contract then use CREATE2 to recreate it at same address when he needs to interact with the system again. Proof of Concept Tools Used Manual Review Recommended Mitigation Steps...

Depositors might not be able to withdraw from StabilityPool if any collateral's price drops significantly

Lines of code Vulnerability details In the TroveManager contract, the closeTrove function contains a check to ensure there is more than one trove, as shown below. TroveManager.solL1278-L1282: function closeTroveaddress borrower, address collateral, Status closedStatus internal assertclosedStatus ...

Integer Overflow & Underflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the setYieldDistributionParams function, there is a danger of underflow or overflow of functionality. Owner calls the function and sets the values to be passed as uint256 for treasurySplit, SPSplit & stakingSplit. There is no check in place to ensure...

implementation of the isValidSignature() function in the DAO.sol is invalid

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Failure to validate the returned response from the isValidSignature function can cause that invalid signatures to be assumed to be valid. Proof of Concept Currently, externally owned accounts EOAs can sign messages with their associated private keys, but...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #633 [1677880427560]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 633 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Vault contract implementation does not disable initializers The Vault.sol contract should implement disableInitializers in its constructure to prevent implementation contracts from being initialized. As this contract...

KUMAFeeCollector.changePayees() executes incorrectly when newPayees contains duplicate items

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When calling KUMAFeeCollector.changePayees with duplicate payees in newPayees, the call is not reverted and the result state will be incorrect. Proof of Concept Contract KUMAFeeCollector does not support duplicate payees. The transaction will revert when...

RewardThrottle.populateFromPreviousThrottle may be exposed to front-run attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact RewardThrottle.populateFromPreviousThrottle allows ADMINROLE to use epochData from previousThrottle to populate state from activeEpoch to epoch in current RewardThrottle. function populateFromPreviousThrottleaddress previousThrottle, uint256 epoch extern...

Early staker can disable staking by issuing and sending a bit to Furance

Lines of code Vulnerability details This one is caused by mitigation to issue M-05 Impact Early issuer can issue less than one wad e.g. 9e17 wei and send it to the Furnace contract, then whenever anyone is trying to issue more RTokens melt would be called, since there’s less than 1 wad in total...

The node operators are likely to be slashed in an unfair way

Lines of code Vulnerability details C4 issue H-04: Hijacking of node operators minipool causes loss of staked funds Comments In the original implementation, the protocol had some unnecessary state transitions and it was possible for node operators to interfere the recreation process. The main...

Minipool whose multisig has been disabled cannot be reassigned a valid one

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The likelihood of startRewardsCycle reverting due to division by zero is practically not going to happen. This is because disableAllMultisigs is only reasonably invoked when pauseEverything is called by the defender. At his point, startRewardsCycle will...

StRSR: attacker can steal excess rsr that is returned after seizure

Lines of code Vulnerability details Note: This issue deals with excess rsr that was seized from stRSR but is returned again. The M-12 issue also deals with excess rsr. However M-12 deals with the fact that not all rsr is returned to stRSR, whereas this issue deals with the fact that an attacker c...

Vault creator can prevent users from claiming staking rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Vault creator can prevent users from claiming rewards from the staking contract. This can boost his liquidity and lure depositors to stake vault tokens. He can present a high APY and low fee percentage which will incentivize stakers When the staking...

MultiRewardStaking claimRewards() reentrancy for ERC-777 reward tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A hacker can drain an ERC-777 reward token funds via reentrancy. This is because in the claimRewards function, the transfer of the reward token which triggers the hacker's ERC-777 hook takes place before setting accruedRewardsuserrewardTokensi to zero...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #619 [1675724566035]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 619 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: The function withdrawRemainingTokens can be changed in a safer way to handle the withdraw from the owner and the protocol fee as well. This prevent risks allocated with the protocol fees. By the docs this function is...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #615 [1675724239375]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 615 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: Unbounded gas usage in claim function of Quest contract The claim function has an unbounded gas usage that traverses different arrays many times. The call to RabbitHoleReceipt.getOwnedTokenIdsOfQuest iterates all...

AddressRegistry might have non-actual record

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact AddressRegistry might has non-actual record, which leads to inconsistent AddressRegistry state, and might affect possible consumers. Proof of Concept To register favorite NFT user calls register function from AddressRegistry. Then he sold this NFT to...

Signature replay attacks possible if deployed on multiple chains

Lines of code Vulnerability details Caller.callSigned operates using an EIP-712 signature which verifies the signed data to be used in a call on behalf of the signer. The problem with this method lies in the fact that it doesn't specify the chain ID, and thus if the contract is ever deployed to...

Payment multiple functions do not check the caller

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Multiple functions in the Payment contract do not check the caller, for example, an attacker can directly call refundETH to transfer assets in the contract function refundETH external payable //@audit if addressthis.balance 0...

The LendgineRouter.burn() will always REVERT due to the callback function forgot to send the due token0 back.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. The LendgineRouter.burn will always REVERT due to the callback function forgot to send the due token0 back. The callback function pairMintCallback is supposed to send back amount0 amount of token0 back ...

Precision loss in the invariant function can lead to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can steal the funds without affecting the invariant. Proof of Concept We can say the function Pair.invariant is the heart of the protocol. All the malicious trades should be prevented by this function. Pair.sol 52: /// @inheritdoc IPair 53:...

## [H-02] Return value of 0 from ecrecover not checked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The solidity function ecrecover is used, however the error result of 0 is not checked for. See documentation: "recover the address associated with the public key from elliptic curve signature or return zero on error. " Now you can supply invalid input...

Wrongly implemented modifier allow everybody to mint Rabbit Hole tickets.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As specified on RabbitHole C4 contest page, RabbitHoleTickets smart contract 'is an 1155 reward contract used by the RabbitHole team.' Meaning that the assets managed by this smart contract have value. Moreover this contract implements ERC-2981: NFT...

Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Mitigation of M-07: Issue not mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-07: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Mitigation of H-02: See comments

Lines of code Vulnerability details The PR applies the recommended mitigation from the finding, but doesn't take into account the rounding issue identified in M-09 Impact If the price the NFT is bought for is not an exact multiple of the filledQuantities, there will be a loss of precision, and...

Orders may not be fillable due to missing approvals

Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings36 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Incorrect _removeTokenEnumeration implementation of ERC1155Enumerable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact removeTokenFromAllTokensEnumeration can never be called, because of wrong order of if statement and idTotalSupplyid -= amount;. This leads to totalSupply do not correctly minus 1 when all token amounts for a specific tokenId get burned. Proof of Concept...

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 #229 [1674661441196]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 229 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Support for IERC165 interface id is missed Contract: Impact: Contract fails to support a valid interface which could lead to failure of genuine calls Steps: Observe the supportsInterface function...

Upgraded Q -> M from #374 [1674664049404]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 374 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 WETHGateway.repayETH will revert if msg.value paybackAmount In the repayETH function, paybackAmount eth will be deposit to WETH contract to get paybackAmount weth back. WETH.depositvalue: paybackAmount; And then...

Deployer will deploy proxies that cannot be upgraded

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In contrast to the Test File, in which you're deploying the proxies directly, the setup from Deployer will keep the Proxy Admin to a zero value. Meaning nobody will be able to upgrade them after the deployment. See POC below to show that the admin slot i...

Future Epoch Pending Redemption Balance Set Vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The setPendingRedemptionBalance function allows an admin to set the balance of a user's pending redemption for a specific epoch. However, it does not properly check that the epoch being set is in the past and not in the future. An attacker could...

exchangeRateDeltaLimit can be exceeded with overrideExchangeRate() and remain unpaused

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CashManger has a safety feature that limits the maximum change in the exchange rate between epochs. in setMintExchangeRate it is checked that this limit is not exceeded but there is no check in overrideExchangeRate. Proof of Concept An epoch could ha...

The calculation logic for the currentEpochStartTimestamp in the constructor of the CashManager.sol is wrong

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This wrong calculation logic for the currentEpochStartTimestamp lead to the situation the currentEpoch that the wrong result is assigned will be stored into the storages in the several functions in the CashManager.sol. Proof of Concept Epoch parameters...

Frontrunning of smart wallet deployment

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. An attacker could obtain information about the owner and 'index' parameters to front-run the deployment of a smart wallet. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add...

JIT(JUST-IN TIME) LIQUIDITY OPPORTUNITIES EXISTS FOR USERS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The MEV opportunity created robs the honest users who deposit before the start of a reward cycle. Leading to loss of rewards for said users. Proof of Concept A user deposits AVAX into tokenggAVAX.sol and in return gets an lp token to represent their...

getStakers() and getMinipools() could return wrong values (Access Control)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Staking.sol and MinipoolManager.sol contracts use the eternal storage pattern. The contracts are a key-value store that all protocol contracts can write to and read. more info: Functions getStakers.staking and getMinipools.MinipoolManager are implemented...

Possible to block withdrawal of staked funds after recordStakingEnd or stakingError

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Node operators can lose their staked AVAX after stakingEnd or stakingError. Funds will be locked in the Staking contract, but impossible to withdraw. A bad actor does need to supply 1000 AVAX which he gets back and has not have real incentive to do it, 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...

Users may be liquidated right after taking maximal debt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since there's no gap between the maximal LTV and the liquidation LTV, user positions may be liquidated as soon as maximal debt is taken, without leaving room for collateral and Papr token prices fluctuations. Users have no chance to add more collateral o...

Malicious user able to start auction to any NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any address can start an auction for an NFT, regardless of whether they are the actual owner of the NFT. This vulnerability could allow an attacker to start auctions for NFTs that they do not own, potentially leading to financial losses for the true owne...

Upgraded Q -> M from #22 [1671528533640]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 22 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: NC-2 Return values of approve not checked --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from #163 [1671458931869]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 163 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: TOKEN TRANSFERS DO NOT VERIFY THAT THE TOKENS WERE SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFERRED Some tokens like zrx do not revert the transaction when the transfer/transferfrom fails and return false, which requires us to check the...

A malicious early user/attacker can manipulate the lpToken's pricePerShare to take an unfair share of future users' deposits

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A well known attack vector for almost all shares based liquidity pool contracts, where an early user can manipulate the price per share and profit from late users' deposits because of the precision loss caused by the rather large value of price per share...

Missing approval check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The lpToken.mint function is called with the msg.sender as the recipient, but there is no check to ensure that the sender has approved the contract to transfer the fractional tokens on their behalf. If the lptoken.mint function is missing a che...

_priceData.price is not verified in _limitClose

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the function limitClose from the TradingExtension contract the priceData.price is not verified with the getVerifiedPrice function instead its value is directly used, and because the the getVerifiedPrice internally calls the function...

LP Rewards can be increased infinitely by a malicious liquidity provider

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LP Rewards can be increased infinitely by a malicious liquidity provider Proof of Concept A Bond NFT holder can claim pending rewards from a bond using the function Lock.claim. function claim uint256 id public returns address claimGovFees; uint amount,...

Router can perform swaps, add/remove liquidity to pools that do not belong to the protocol.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can lose their funds PoC In UniswapV3 decodeFirstPool returns the tuple address tokenOut, address tokenIn, uint24 fee . From there it lookups the corresponding pool address with getPooltokenIn, tokenOut, fee which may not exist. See However, in you...

depositAndTrade::exactInputSingleParams the possible return values not checked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The return values ​​from collateral.deposit and collateral.transferFrom are not used. This means that the values ​​returned by those functions will not be stored or used in the code. The swapRouter.exactInputSingle function also likely returns no value, ...