An attacker can contribute to the ETH crowdfund using a flash loan and control the party as he likes.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can have more than half of the total voting power using a flash loan and abuse other contributors. Proof of Concept The main flaw is that the party can distribute funds right after the crowdfund is finalized within the same block. So the...

Constant product formula is not maintained in deposit() and withdraw() functions.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As constant product formula is not followed, during deposit/withdraw, actualReserves - both actual NFT and BaseToken are updated but virtualReserves are not updated. This could lead to incorrect price deviation for the trader, most reverting their...

No check for minPrice and maxPrice in the deposit() function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact No check for minPrice and maxPrice in the deposit function could lead to unexpected consequences Proof of Concept In the function deposit function deposit address payable privatePool, address nft, uint256 calldata tokenIds, uint256 minPrice, uint256...

PartyGovernanceNFT.sol: burn function does not reduce totalVotingPower making it impossible to reach unanimous votes

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact With the new version of the Party protocol the PartyGovernanceNFT.burn function has been introduced. This function is used to burn party cards. According to the sponsor the initial purpose of this function was to enable the InitialETHCrowdfund contract t...

VetoProposal: proposals cannot be vetoed in all states in which it should be possible to veto proposals

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The VetoProposal contract allows to veto proposals with the voteToVeto function. The proposal can only be vetoed when it is in the Voting state, otherwise the voteToVeto function reverts. The issue is that the Voting state is not the only state in which ...

A malicious frontrunner can make the Mutebond contract broken when the owner decreases maxPayout

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Mutebond contract might stop working after the owner decreased maxPayout by a malicious frontrunner. Proof of Concept setMaxPayout can be used to reset maxPayout. function setMaxPayoutuint payout external requiremsg.sender == customTreasury.owner;...

MuteBond.sol: deposit function allows no control for payout and value which leads to unexpected purchases of bonds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The MuteBond.deposit function allows the user to purchase a bond with LP tokens and receive MUTE tokens in return. The bondPrice increases linearly over time which I should mention means the bond gets cheaper; the naming is a bit confusing. There is...

An attacker can lower the price of another depositor() by frontrunning

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. The deposit function will bump bond price back by 5% after purchase based on current delta. However, this function can be executed unlimited number of times in the same block and as a result, one can...

Reth slippage and fee stealing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Reth derivative contract calculates the maximum slippage for buying rETH from the Uniswap V3 pool by using the current price in the pool at runtime, without considering the price at which the user submitted the transaction to the mempool: uint...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #74 [1679875886032]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 74 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: Exchange Rate can be manipulated if positions are big enough for a long enough time --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #88 [1679874611177]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 88 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-1 Vault assignment in VaultToken can be frontrunned --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Disabling self-transfer may cause integration issues with other protocols

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Integration errors with other protocols Proof of Concept The changes made for H-01 causes transfers to revert if from == to. This is problematic because this is non-standard ERC20 behavior that can cause integration risk/issues with other protocols. I...

LiquidityPool.executePerpOrders(): dangerous payable function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract LiquidityPool use a dangerous payable function executePerpOrders In this function, users can send ETH mistakenly. We should check the msg.value is 0 or not to void this issue. Proof of Concept function executePerpOrdersbytes calldata...

NeoTokyoStaker.getPoolReward function can be frontrun, which can cause staker and DAO to lose reward shares that they are entitled to

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When calling the following NeoTokyoStaker.stakeBytes and NeoTokyoStaker.stakeLP functions, the higher the specified amount to be staked is, the higher the pool.totalPoints is increased by. function stakeBytes uint256 private uint256 amount; uint256...

Malicious users can claim BYTES rewards after withdrawing all of their LP stake

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users are able to continue claiming BYTES rewards indefinitely on their initials points after withdrawing all of their LP stake. Proof of Concept A user can withdraw all of their LP staked tokens in multiple steps with an amount 1e16. If the amount is...

Loss of reward for stakingRewardRecipient

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call claimRewards function with rewardType = LotteryRewardType.STAKING, in which function LotteryMath.calculateRewards is used to calculate reward to transfer to beneficiary. By observing number of ticketsSold calculated from the...

Multiplier must be capped to prevent expected payout exceeding ticket price

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Expected payout may be greater than ticket price, bankrupting the lottery. Proof of Concept ticketsSold determines the multiplier to be used when calculating non jackpot rewards LotteryMath.solL84: bonusMulti += excessPot EXCESSBONUSALLOCATION /...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #17 [1678363178694]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 17 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: 5. Duplicated swingTrader addresses can be added which make sellMalt/buyMalt working incorrectly Details In function addSwingTrader, there is no check to ensure swingTrader address is not existed. So admin can make a...

Re-entrancy inside BorrowOperations if collateral is ERC777

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Invariant violations through re-entrancy if the collateral token is ERC777 Proof of Concept If the collateral token will be an ERC777 token, a malicious user could use the safeTransfer from L231 to re-enter the BorrowOperations contract context and call...

Losses are double counted if there currently locked profits

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Losses are double counted and vault participants lose funds Proof of Concept if roi 0 vars.gain = uint256roi; vars.fees = chargeFeesvars.stratAddr, vars.gain; strategy.gains += vars.gain; ... // Profit is locked and gradually released per block // NOTE:...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #268 [1677186221526]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 268 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: code423n4 commented on Jan 17 Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As there is no callback in Seaport 1.1. When listing on OpenSea, Astaria adds an additional item to be received along with payment token. It is...

KUMABondToken.approve() should revert if the owner of the tokenId is blacklisted

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is still possible for a blacklisted user's bond token to be approved. Proof of Concept KUMABondToken.approve only checks if msg.sender and to are not blacklisted. It doesn't check if the owner of the tokenId is not blacklisted. For example, the...

Upgraded Q -> 3 from #71 [1676966386580]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 71 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-04 onlyMinter modifier is not working as expected Description onlyMinter can be bypasssed by anyone due to an invalid check: modifier onlyMinter msg.sender == minterAddress; ; Thus, everyone can mint tokens: functio...

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...

Mitigation of M-03: Issue not fully mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Original issue: M-03: Baited by redemption during undercollateralization no issuance, just transfer Explanation This is basically a dupe of M-04 as commented by the judge, I elaborated on this on the M-04 mitigation. TL;DR - using a boolean parameter to agree t...

Mitigation Confirmed for Mitigation of H-06 Issue mitigated

C4 issue H-06: MinipoolManager: node operator can avoid being slashed Comments In the original implementation, there were a few scenarios where malicious node operators can avoid being slashed. Mitigation PR 41 This PR includes mitigation for various issues H-03, H-06, M-13. Just focusing on the...

First depositor for the Vault can be front-run and have part of their deposit stolen

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The first deposit with a totalSupply of zero shares will mint shares equal to the deposited amount. File: src/vault/Vault.sol 298: supply == 0 299: ? assets 300: : assets.mulDivsupply, totalAssets, Math.Rounding.Down; Link to Code File:...

Wrong first parameter for _calcRewardsEnd when changing reward speed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The function calcRewardsEnd is called with the previousEndTime as first parameter in MultiRewardStaking.changeRewardSpeed, which leads to wrong calculation of the new rewardsEndTimestamp, causing it to be later than it should be. This will lead to more...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #338 [1675444008015]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 338 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-04 Staking.restakeGGP function should have whenNotPaused modifier Staking.sol 1 --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Anyone can call the DripsHub.split function to frontrun the DripsHub.setSplits function call of the trusted user who owns the splittable funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As mentioned by the following DripsHub.split function's comment, the user, who owns the splittable funds, needs to be trusted by the receivers for such splittable funds. Yet, when this trusted user wants to call the DripsHub.setSplits function below to...

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...

[H-01] Reentrancy attack is possible when using ERC777 tokens in DripsHub

Lines of code Vulnerability details H-01 Reentrancy attack is possible when using ERC777 tokens in DripsHub Impact: Some ERC20 tokens implement the EIP 777 interface including the tokensToSend hook, which performs a callback to the user from which tokens will be transferred before the tokens are...

An approved operator of a CID NFT owner can steall any subprotocol NFTs from the CID NFT Owner and his other approved operators.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. An approved operator of a CID NFT owner, if becomes malicious or compromised, can steal any subprotocol NFTs from the CID NFT Owner and his other approved operators. This is possible because: after...

claim can run out of gas

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the claim function runs out of gas, the caller can never claim any rewards without transferring the nfts to another address first Proof of Concept Currently, the claim function loops over the msg.senders NFT's. If this list ever becomes too large, the...

Bad implementation in minter access control for RabbitHoleReceipt and RabbitHoleTickets contracts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Both RabbitHoleReceipt and RabbitHoleTickets contracts define a mint function that is protected by a onlyMinter modifier: RabbitHoleReceipt: function mintaddress to, string memory questId public onlyMinter tokenIds.increment; uint newTokenID = tokenIds.current;...

withdrawFee() can be called indefinitely

Lines of code Vulnerability details The function withdrawFee does not account whether the fees have already been collected or not, therefore it can be called multiple times or even indefinitely, until the contract balance reaches zero. All funds will be transferred to the protocolFeeRecipient, bu...

Protocol fees can be withdrawn multiple times in Erc20Quest

Lines of code Vulnerability details The withdrawFee function present in the Erc20Quest contract can be used to withdraw protocol fees after a quest has ended, which are sent to the protocol fee recipient address: function withdrawFee public onlyAdminWithdrawAfterEnd...

withdrawRemainingTokens() in the Erc1155Quest withdraws all tokens and does not consider the amount of unclaimed tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The withdrawRemainingTokens function in the Erc1155Quest contract does not consider the amount of unclaimed tokens. When the owner calls the function when the quest has ended, all tokens belonging to the contract will be withdrawn. Any user who has not y...

Replayable signature in the mintReceipt function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In the mintReceipt function there is a check of the claimSignerAddress signature: if keccak256abi.encodePackedmsg.sender, questId != hash revert InvalidHash; if recoverSignerhash, signature != claimSignerAddress revert AddressNotSigned; The signatur...

Mitigation of M-04: See comments

Lines of code Vulnerability details The PR does NOT fix the issue described in the finding, and instead addresses issue 45. The change breaks out of the loop, which solves the case where the price is the same as the lowest bid, but doesn't address the case where the price is higher than the lowes...

Incorrect calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact On line 119, the result of the conversion is always going to be zero. Therefore, functions that apply onlyDriver modifier will never be executed. Proof of Concept Please deploy the code below to test the modifier's broken implementation. //...

Timeswap Options has no reentry check and is providing a set of flashloan with no fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details high-flashloan-provider @timeswap Impact In the file /package/v2-option/TimeswapV2Option.sol, There are a range of functions that has no Reentry check. As a consequence, when the contract call back msg.sender, an attacker can then reeentry in his own callee...

Malicious lender can create pool imbalance by tricking V2 pool into accepting disproportionately large number of long tokens in exchange for short tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Timeswap V2 Pool works on constant product AMM where the total long tokens & short tokens follow the equation total long total short = L. Any increase in short tokens caused by lenders has to be accompanied with a proportionate drop in long tokens to kee...

A Malicious User can Lock All Funds in an Option

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact By calling the mint and burn functions with the 'amount0' and 'amount1' equal to the the option pair's respective balances of token0 and token1, a user can cause a given option's "Option.totalLong0" and "Option.totalLong1" to both be set to 0. The effect...

Upgraded Q -> H from #296 [1674743769839]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 296 as H risk. The relevant finding follows: Lines of code Vulnerability details A malicious liquidator could cause the NFT auction to fail and steal the collateral after end of auction. Impact Anyone can act as a liquidator and trigger the liquidation of the...

Upgraded Q -> M from #449 [1674665297296]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 449 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑03 MintableIncentivizedERC721 does not implement ERC721.safeTransferFrom properly MintableIncentivizedERC721 is described as: 27: @notice Basic ERC721 implementation which will be used as a parent contract for...

Reentrancy attack to swap()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. A malicious contract can initiate a reentrancy attack to the swap function: it can swap token0 for token1, receiving token0 but without effectively providing the due token1 amount used to mint instead...

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...

User can lose 10 ethers to Vault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a user or a contract that has a large allowance 10 ethers or max on an ERC4626Cloned based Vault that has not yet received any deposits, calls mint with 0 share argument, will have a 10 ethers of the asset transferred to the Vault with no way to recla...

Solmate's ERC20 does not check for token contract's existence

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Not checking for token existence is a know issue for Solmate. This can cause unexpected contract functionality for transfers implemented in the codes. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all...