Unprotested _setup function in XERC20Wrapper via Upgradable Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a caller calls the setup function and the address within the IMPLEMENTATIONSLOT does not equal zero, the function will call setup. The setup function changes the ownership of the contract. Proof of Concept The Upgradable contract has a setup function...

Potential scenario where an attacker can steal a user's gas refund

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anybody is allowed to add gas for a specific tx. I was trying to figure out whether the following scenarios are possible: 1. Alice sends a public tx where she deposits some gas and calls the gateway contract after 2. Bob, the attacker, catches that...

Refund Address can forcefully receive WETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In AxelarDepositService.sol , the refundAddress could forcefully receive WETH instead of the refundToken when calling any of the 3 functions refundTokenDeposit , refundNativeDeposit and refundNativeUnwrap. This is possible by due to // Allowing only the...

Possible to delegate same token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It's possible to call delegatetokenId1, tokenId2 using the same token tokenId1 multiple times. The previous delegated value isn't deleted, and all delegations stack up. This way tokenId2 will have all these tokens as delegated:...

Attacker can steal all the wrapped tokens, ether or native currency contained in the ReceiverImplementation contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact since all the functions in the ReceiverImplemention are all designed to be called by DepositBase and AxelarDepositService, why not create a simple modifer to check if msg.sender equals either of the two when a delegatecall or call occurs, like so modifie...

Impossible to delegate

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It's impossible to delegate to a token, because the first delegation will always revert. Consider there's no delegation so far, meaning that every token will have numCheckpointstoken = 0. When calling delegate, we will have nCheckpoints = 0 and the call...

AxelarAuthWeighted.sol#_validateSignature fails for valid transaction if early signer submits invalid signature

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Valid transactions deemed invalid Proof of Concept for ; operatorIndex function isSortedAscAndContainsNoDuplicateaddress memory accounts internal pure returns bool for uint256 i; i = accountsi + 1 return false; return accounts0 != address0; Va...

High risk with links to code

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates the concept. Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps --- The...

DNSSECImpl.verifySignature compares strings incorrectly, allowing malicious zones to forge DNSSEC trust chain

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact DNSSEC allows parent zones to sign for its child zones. To check validity of a signature, RFC4034 3.1.7 requires the Signer's Name in any RRSIG RDATA to contain the zone of covered RRset. This requirement is reasonable since any child zone should be...

ETHRegistrarController.renew should call NameWrapper.renew

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact NameWrapper.renew has an onlyController modifier. And ETHRegistrarController should be the controller of NameWrapper Otherwise ETHRegistrarController.register cannot call NameWrapper.registerAndWrapETH2LD. Therefore, ETHRegistrarController.renew should...

Usage of deprecated transfer to send ETH

Lines of code%20%7B-,payablemsg.sender.transfer,-msg.valueL183 Vulnerability details Impact The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when: The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function. The claimer smart contract does...

Some implementation mistakes in dnssec-oracle/BytesUtils.compare

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are some implementation mistakes in dnssec-oracle/BytesUtils.compare. There should be a sanity check for offsets and lens if shortest 32 is not a correct condition. It should check the size of the last block. shortest is the total size of the bytes...

Parent domain owner can steal ownership and clear any fuses for any sub-domain if CANNOT_UNWRAP is not burnt on his own domain

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a general incorrect logic of burning fuses throughout NameWrapper, which allows parent domain owner to burn subdomain fuses including PARENTCANNOTCONTROL regardless of parent domain's own fuses only subdomain fuses are checked, parent fuses are...

Multiple auction can run on same vault - Collateral loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to insufficient checks, it is possible to run 2 auctions at same time. This can lead to loss of collateral for this vault as collateral quantity placed for auction will double Proof of Concept 1. User starts auction on vault id 1 which transfer...

Caller can receive liquidatorCut without transferring underlying when calling payBase()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If baseJoin's available balance is greater than callers' amount no underlying will be transferred but caller still gets liquidatorCut. This may also negatively impact the accounting since its updated under the assumption that the caller will transfer...

Collateral limit can be exceeded on a new auction

Lines of code Vulnerability details Witch's auction checks the total collateral limit before updating the structure with the current auction's data. This way this limit end up not being respected in result of auction call and can be actually breached for an arbitrary big amount as auction.ink tha...

Incorrect check for signature malleability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Sig.recover has an Incorrect check: c.v != 27 || c.v != 28. Thus, Sig.recover always reverts. Proof of Concept c.v != 27 || c.v != 28 is always true function recoverbytes32 h, Components calldata c internal pure returns address // EIP-2 and malleable...

Don't trust in references contracts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The references contracts don't check anything, and the function receive a lot of parameters to manipulate the call Proof of Concept If somebody approveERC20/777/721/1155 the TransferReference contract or use a delegatecall the tokens can be stolen...

Loss of funds in an underlying protocol would cause catostrophic loss of funds for swivel

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Loss of all user funds Proof of Concept This exploit stems from a quirk in the way that exchange rate is tracked for matured positions. We first need to breakdown how interest is calculate for a matured position. In L124 the yield for a matured position ...

Migration Module: The assets can be taken by a failed proposal

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact HIGH - Assets can be stolen directly When there are multiple proposals for a vault, a failed proposal can withdraw the assets. Proof of Concept proof of concept: testMultiProposalpoc The proof of concept shows a scenario alice is taking assets. 1. setup:...

fractionPrice precision can be lost if fractional tokens supply is high enough

Lines of code Vulnerability details Buyout's start now determine fractional token price by dividing native tokens amount by total supply number. Whenever the supply is high enough the precision can be lost, leading to severe losses to buyout proposer as his staked fractional tokens can be valued ...

Chainlink's latestRoundData (price) might return stale or incorrect result

Lines of code Vulnerability details JBChainlinkV3PriceFeed.sol we are using latestRoundData, but there is no check if the return value indicates stale data..Even though its only getting the price variable, the whole latestRoundData function gets returned and we cant just ignore it because the pri...

Insufficient Chainlink price feed validation

Lines of code Vulnerability details JBChainlinkV3PriceFeedcurrentPrice reads the price value from the underlying Chainlink price feed, but ignores the other values returned by latestRoundData, which include the round timestamps and round ID in which the returned price was computed. These values...

Miners can influence the value of block.timestamp to perform Maximal Extractable Value (MEV) attacks.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Miners can influence the value of block.timestamp to perform Maximal Extractable Value MEV attacks. The use of now creates a risk that time manipulation can be performed to manipulate price oracles. Miners can modify the timestamp by up to 900 seconds...

Unsafe transferFrom()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Yieldy.transferFrom returns false on failure instead of reverting. This might lead to moveFundsToUpgradedContract incorrectly unstaking and restaking tokens, potentially causing user or Migration.sol to lose funds depending on NEWCONTRACT and OLDCONTRACT...

Deflationary/fee-on-transfer tokens are not supported

Lines of code Lender.solL215 Lender.solL337 Lender.solL398 Lender.solL456 Lender.solL521 Lender.solL564 Lender.solL617 Vulnerability details Impact When an amount of underlying tokens is sent to the Lender.sol contract during a lend, the actual amount gained by the contract might not be exactly t...

griefing on claim()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Issue: griefing can happen if coolDownPeriod is 0 due to the fact that you can stake for someone else, whenever a stake happens, the expiry variable increases with coolDownPeriod. This can be done either by watching the mempool and frontrun a stake when someone...

Griefers can prevent users from claiming YIELDY_TOKENs from the warm up

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When warmUpPeriod is greater than 0, anyone can deny i.e.: grief any user from claiming their YIELDYTOKENs from Staking.sol. Proof of Concept 1. Admin sets the warmUpPeriod to 2. 2. A user deposits a decent amount STAKINGTOKENs, with the expectation that...

Denial of Service by wrong BatchRequests.removeAddress logic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The BatchRequests.removeAddress logic is wrong and it will produce a denial of service. Proof of Concept Removing the element from the array is done using the delete statement, but this is not the proper way to remove an entry from an array, it will just...

Ineffective TWAV Implementation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Background The current TWAV implementation consists of an array of 4 observations/valuations called twavObservations. Whenever, the new valuation is updated, the new cumulative valuation will be appended to the twavObservations array and the oldest...

TWAV can be attacked by flash loan

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact updateTWAV can be flash loaned. Hacker may pay the flash loan fee for 4 blocks then execute the attack after that. Proof of Concept function updateTWAVuint256 valuation, uint32 blockTimestamp internal uint32 timeElapsed; unchecked timeElapsed =...

Buyer can initiateBuyout by sending less value than current valuation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Intuitively, a buyer calling initiateBuyout should be sending a msg.value greater than or equal to current valuation. However, they can actually send less than this amount and still initiate the buyout. On line 404 we have requirebuyoutBid =...

Accumulated ETH fees of InfinityExchange cannot be retrieved

Lines of code Vulnerability details ETH fees accumulated from takeOrders and takeMultipleOneOrders operations are permanently frozen within the contract as there is only one way designed to retrieve them, a rescueETH function, and it will work as intended, not being able to access ETH balance of...

Tokens with decimals larger than 18 are not supported

Lines of code Vulnerability details For tokens with decimals larger than 18, many functions across the codebase will revert due to underflow. function getPriceFromDexaddress tokenAddress public view returns uint256 PriceInfo storage priceInfo = priceRecordstokenAddress; if priceInfo.active uint25...

InfinityExchange owner can steal user's tokens via front-running

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Contract InfinityExchange.sol charges protocol fee through PROTOCOLFEEBPS. The issue is that owner of the contract is able to change protocol fee at any time without any restriction which puts him in a very privileged position and allows him to steal...

If token == BADGER, the _handleRewardTransfer function does not work

Lines of code MyStrategy.solL405-L413 BaseStrategy.solL346-L353 Vault.solL396-L415 Vulnerability details Impact In MyStrategy.sol, when claiming bribes or sweeping reward tokens, the handleRewardTransfer function is called which calls sendToBadgerTree to send the amount of BADGER in the contract ...

Badger rewards from Hidden Hand can permanently prevent Strategy from receiving bribes

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the contract receives rewards from the hidden hand marketplace in BADGER then the contract tries to transfer the same amount of tokens twice to two different accounts, once with sendBadgerToTree in MyStrategy and again with processExtraToken in the...

The withdrawal safety check in _withdrawSome() seems unreasonable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The withdrawal safety check in seems unreasonable. Proof of Concept I don’t understand why max = amount99.8% need to be confirmed. max should be larger than amount. And amount function withdrawSomeuint256 amount internal override returns uint256 uint256...

attacker can lock all the auraBAL rewards in contract address forever and they won't be accessible

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact auraBAL token is in protected tokens list, so it can't be transferred to bribeProcessor by using sweepRewardToken. function harvest is supposed to call LOCKER.getReward and then swap received auraBAL rewards and deposit them in LOCKER, but it only can do...

Rounding Issues In Certain Functions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Background Per EIP 4626's Security Considerations Finally, ERC-4626 Vault implementers should be aware of the need for specific, opposing rounding directions across the different mutable and view methods, as it is considered most secure to favor the Vault itsel...

Loss of tokens due to wrong burn function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact redeemToUnderlying is also affected by the issue I reported earlier which is described below. The redeem function calls burn which is inherited from IERC777Upgradeable contract whose action is to burn ERC20 tokens, thus there is no transfer or withdrawal...

Upgraded Q -> M from 98 [1654475216526]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 98 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: Set Limits on setFee A Malicious owner could set feeRate to = 100 1e18 / 100; which would give the entire value of an exercise transaction to the protocol, create a limit on the fees the owner can set. --- The te...

Integer Overflow in Nonce Possible Via EIP 1271 Compliant Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current NonceManager deployed version does not expect a nonce to go as high to actually trigger an integer overflow and is therefore, unchecked. However, it is completely possible to have the nonce go as high with EIP 1271 contracts that hold the NFT...

call() should be used instead or transfer() on an address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details This is a classic Code4rena issue: code-423n4/2021-04-meebits-findings2 code-423n4/2021-10-tally-findings20 code-423n4/2022-01-openleverage-findings75 Impact The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail...

Can overfill orders

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There's a bug in the partial order filling that allows an attacker to overfill any order fill more than the total size of the order. This bug happens because the fractions are stored as uint120s in orderStatus but intermediate computations to scale the...

Lack of safeApprove(0) may prevent deposits and swapping of token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact OpenZeppelin’s safeApprove will revert if the account already is approved and the new safeApprove is done with a non-zero value. Users may be prevented from swapping tokens to Backd LPTokens a second time Proof of Concept There are multiple places...

Upgraded Q -> M from 294 [1654058024144]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 294 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: Beneficiary is credited additional ETH above premium The CallybuyOption function ensures that the caller sends an ETH amount equal to or greater than the calculated premium: buyOptionL224 requiremsg.value =...

Lack of Access Restriction for Conduit Creation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call the createConduit function in the ConduitController contract to create new channels and set the conduit owner. This is dangerous because a hacker can create a new conduit and set himself as the owner of the conduit. The hacker can use the...

Repeated calls to deliverBribes() risks draining bribe of assets into Gauge

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Funds drain from Bribe prematurely with repeated calls to deliverBribes Proof of Concept Calling deliverBribes calls deliverRewards which transfers the amount specified as the rewards due and sends to gauge. Repeated calls to deliverBribes makes repeated...

Voting overwrites checkpoint.voted in last checkpoint, so users can just vote right before claiming rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if cp0.voted reward += cp0.balanceOf rewardPerTokenStored1 - rewardPerTokenStored0 / PRECISION; this line in gauge.earned function looks like the intention here is to incentivize users to keep their escrow.balanceOfNft voted for this gauge. However, it's...