Broker Address can be Claim by a MEV Bot

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the broker address is a malicious user, he can mint as many OTAP as he wants. Proof of Concept Protocol deploy the OTAP contract A Bot wait until the contract is deployed Then call the "brokerClaim" straight away with his own address. He can then call...

Malicious user can drain the Singularity contract of it's liquidity

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The SGLCollateral contract has functionality to allow users to remove and add collateral for the Singularity market. The addCollateral function accepts a skim parameter that, if defined as true, will cause the internal addTokens function to assert that t...

Potential Loss of Rewards During Token Transfers in StaticATokenLM.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This issue could lead to a permanent loss of rewards for the transferer of the token. During the token transfer process, the beforeTokenTransfer function updates rewards for both the sender and the receiver. However, due to the specific call order and th...

Integer overflow in getDerivedPrice()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An integer overflow could cause the getDerivedPrice function to return an incorrect price. This could lead to financial losses for users of the contract. Proof of Concept Sure, I can generate a report with this information for all the bugs in the smart...

First Depositor Attack is possible by front-running mip00 script execution

Lines of code Vulnerability details Overview The First Depositor Attack Within the context of Compound v2, a First Depositor Attack occurs when an attacker becomes the inaugural minter of a cToken. This enables them to establish the first exchange rate between the underlying asset and the cToken...

Malicious proposal can drain the treasury contract and bypass the gscAllowance[token] check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious proposal can drain the treasury contract and bypass the gscAllowancetoken check Proof of Concept See this two function: function gscSpend address token, uint256 amount, address destination external onlyRoleGSCCOREVOTINGROLE nonReentrant if...

_getSelector does not return the right selector

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact getSelector... function in the CoreVoting.sol will NEVER return the correct function selector of a calldata string. This can lead to malfunction in the system when creating a proposal. Proof of Concept The function selector is suppose to be the hash dige...

Incorrect implementation of binary search in _find() in History.sol can make BaseVotingVault.sol break and cannot return correct staleIndex

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The binary search implemented in find in History.sol is incorrect and in some cases cannot return a correct stale index, and as a result some functions in baseVotingVault.sol can not work properly like queryVotePower. Although History.sol is not in scope...

Front run attacks during the 7 day cooldown period in setGSCAllowance.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A malicious miner can send a transaction from the GSC to drain the new allowance before the admin's transaction sets it. Proof of Concept The setGSCAllowance function sets a 7 day cooldown period between allowance changes for each token. This prevents th...

Permits may be reused after token upgrade

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The StandardizedToken contract inherits the ERC20Permit contract which in the case of an upgradable/proxied Token would allow permits for a previous version of the Token to be used on any subsequent version of it. NOTE that ERC20Permit is not explicitly ...

M-02 Unmitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Original Issue code-423n4/2023-06-angle-findings31 Details It shows LibGetters.getCollateralRatio might return the incorrect ratio due to the unsafe cast. Mitigation PR: AngleProtocol/angle-transmuter@6f2ffcb During the mitigation, it uses the safeCast library...

No access control on mintYieldFee

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Lack of access-control allows anyone to mint the yield fee to himself. Proof of Concept Vault.mintYieldFee does not restrict the recipient yield fees: function mintYieldFeeuint256 shares, address recipient external requireVaultCollateralized; if shares...

IF THE UNDERLYING ASSET IS A FEE ON TRANSFER TOKEN IT COULD BREAK THE INTERNAL ACCOUNTING OF THE VAULT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Vault.deposit function is used by the users to deposit assets to the vault and mint vault shares to the recipient address. The amount of assets are transferred to the Vault as follows: SafeERC20.safeTransferFrom asset, caller, addressthis,...

TwabLib::getTwabBetween can return innacurate balances if _startTime and _endTime aren't safely bounded

Lines of code Vulnerability details M-01 TwabLib::getTwabBetween can return innacurate balances if startTime and endTime aren't safely bounded Vulnerability details Here's the documentation of the get TwabLib::getTwabBetween function : File: twab-controller\src\libraries\TwabLib.sol 278: / 279:...

Claim failure can result to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Caller will lose funds through gas fees when claim fails Proof of Concept The claimPrize function allows any caller to claim a prize by providing the necessary parameters: winner address of the winner, tier prize tier, prizeIndex prize index,...

All transactions with Ether to NounsDAOExecutor::executeTransaction() function will fail.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact All transactions with Ether to the NounsDAOExecutor::executeTransaction function will fail because it does not have the payable keyword. Proof of Concept The executeTransaction function of the NounsDAOExecutor contract does not have the payable keyword s...

Proposal can executed even when it is in the "Queued" state.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can bypass the intended governance process and directly execute proposals that are still in the voting or canceled state. This can result in unauthorized actions being performed on the smart contract, leading to loss of funds Proof of Concept...

Inflation attack in well

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Well.sol contract is vulnerable to a first depositor attack allowing someone to directly send funds to the pool in order to obfuscate the totalSupply and steal funds from the subsequent depositor. Proof of Concept Below is how the attack can be carri...

The MultiFlowPump.sol/update() function will neither update nor revert any call made to it by any Well Implementation, hence will fail in storing the correct reserve values.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The MultiFlowPump will not be able to update the lastReserves, emaReserves, cumulativeReserves. This will let any attacker to manipulate the value of reserves to any number. Proof of Concept As provided the code of update function, the getDeltaTimestamp...

Well.sol::skim() anyone can transfer excess funds to their account.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description The skim is designed to transfer excess tokens held by the contract to a specified recipient. However, it lacks proper access control checks, allowing any user to initiate the transfer of excess tokens, regardless of ownership. This presents a...

NO ACCESS CONTROL IN THE Well.skim() EXTERNAL FUNCTION

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Well.skim external function is used to transfer the excess tokens held by the Well to recipient. But there is no access control in this function and hence anyone can call this function. Therefore this function allows any arbitory user recieve the...

Stealing excess tokens from other users by either front-running skim function or calling it before legitimate user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact File /src/interfaces/IWell.sol comment's defines what the skim function is being responsible for: / @notice Sends excess tokens held by the Well to the recipient. @param recipient The address to send the tokens @return skimAmounts The amount of each toke...

Read-only reentrancy is possible

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The agToken might be minted wrongly as rewards due to the reentrancy attack. Proof of Concept There are redeem/swap logics in the transmuter contract and all functions don't have a nonReentrant modifier. So the typical reentrancy attack is possible durin...

getMerkleRoot() might return an unconfirmed root.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users might claim rewards using an unconfirmed merkle root. Proof of Concept getMerkleRoot returns the merkle root to claim the rewards. function getMerkleRoot public view returns bytes32 if block.timestamp = endOfDisputePeriod return tree.merkleRoot; el...

LACK OF deadline CHECK COULD PROMPT DELAYED EXECUTION OF swap OPERATION

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The RewardHandler.sellRewards function is used by governance and trusted sellers to sell reward tokens for collateral tokens. This function ensures that none of the collateral should be decreased after the swap by checking their respective balances befor...

Not using slippage parameter when interacting with AMMs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The slippage parameters are hardcoded to 0, meaning the minimum amount can be 0. The absence of slippage protection causes transactions to be vulnerable to front running. This can result in users potentially losing their funds. Proof of Concept...

Reward clarinets can claim rewards multiple times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reward claimers can call the get accrued reward function multiple times and maybe even drain the contract Proof of Concept As we can see there’s no check setting the accrued reward to zero after the rewards have been transferred Tools Used Manual review...

Potential Integer Underflow/Overflow: The code uses the SafeCastLib library for type conversions, but it does not handle potential underflow or overflow situations.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The potential integer underflow/overflow vulnerability in the code can lead to incorrect calculations, unexpected behavior, and potential security issues. Proof of Concept In the provided code, there are a few areas where potential integer...

Calculation during rebalancing can overflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept Rebalancing logic in TalosBaseStrategy will start by the strategy manager calling TalosBaseStrategy.rebalance to swap imbalanced tokens. This function will call TalosStrategySimple.doRebalance Next, PoolActions.swapEqualAmounts will be called...

RootBridgeAgent.redeemSettlement can be front-run using RootBridgeAgent.retrySettlement causing redeem DoS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since RootBridgeAgent.retrySettlement... can be called by anyone for any settlement, a malicious actor can front-run an user trying to redeem his failed settlement via RootBridgeAgent.redeemSettlement... by calling RootBridgeAgent.retrySettlement... with...

_payFallbackGas is not being paid in case selector is 0x07 or 0x08

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact payFallbackGas gas is not being paid for selectors 0x07 and 0x08 which causes a loss for protocol's execution gas budget. In case Execution budget is not enough then anyFallback will fail. Proof of Concept In payFallbackGas gas should always be paid in...

Potential Loss of Funds Due to Zero Slippage Hardcoding in TalosBaseStrategy#deposit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the deposit function within the TalosBaseStrategy contract, both slippage for two tokens amount0Min and amount1Min are hardcoded to zero. This can have severe implications as users may unintentionally accept a minimum of zero output tokens from a swap...

distributeRewards can revert because of the too strict slippage check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The report highlights that the distributeRewards function can revert due to a strict slippage check. The provided proof of concept demonstrates the issue, where the slippage is set to 98%, leading to potential transaction failures. Proof of Concept...

[H] Users can withdraw more tokens than they have staked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can withdraw more tokens than they have staked from the contract. In stakerewardV2pool, there is no check to stop a user from withdrawing more tokens than they have staked. The tokens are simply subtracted from the user's balance and from the total...

flashloan stealing staking reward

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The report reveals a vulnerability where a flashloan can be used to steal staking rewards. The provided proof of concept demonstrates the issue, where a user can take advantage of the earned rewards calculation using the spot balance. By flashloaning a...

Users with bad collateralization ratio from either rebase/nonrebasevault can bypassliquidation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact users with an unsafe collateralization ratio who are supposed to be liquidated can manipulate the rigidRedemption feature to bypass the liquidation. From the code above its noted that being a rigidRedemption provider one can can put their collateral amou...

In LybraStETHVault.sol (LybraEUSDVaultBase.sol) a user could rigid redeem an amount more than their deposited collateral when the collateral ratio of the user goes below 100% even if they have been super-liquidated.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If the collateral ratio of a user goes below 100%, the user would be able to redeem all of their eUSD for a collateral amount greater than their depositedAssetuser even after they have been super-liquidated. For eg, let us say we have a user X. Now, in...

Proposal remains open to votes for only 3 blocks instead of 7 days

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LybraGovernance contract only allows to vote during the first 3 blocks after the snapshot is taken. Assuming it takes roughly 12 seconds per 1 block on Ethereum, it is only 36 seconds to decide and vote for a proposal. This would be too fast for a regula...

Voting period hardcoded to 3 blocks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Here in the Governance contract, the voting period is locked to 3 blocks. function votingPeriod public pure override returns uint256 return 3; function votingDelay public pure override returns uint256 return 1; This is a direct bug because if we take a...

Missing slippage protection leads to potential sandwich of small transfers or blocking the swap feature

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The swap module is invoked with a default of coinswaptypes.InputCoin: transferredCoin, Address: recipient.String, coinswaptypes.OutputCoin: swapCoins, Address: recipient.String. The swap module makes sure that in tokens of the swap are limitted to...

Slippage protection minOut autoSwapThreshold is not effective when swapping the token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the current model, the minimum output minOut amount for the auto-swap is set to match the autoSwapThreshold, which is fixed at 4 CANTO. This configuration might result in potential market risks due to fluctuations in the value of CANTO, potentially...

On OnRecvPacket, TradeInputForExactOutput is called with all the amount of the transferred coin as a maximum which is not safe.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In OnRecvPacket IBC receive callback, coinswapKeeper.TradeInputForExactOutput is called to swap from transferredCoin to standardDenom i.e. canto. TradeInputForExactOutput func takes the input as max amount of the token to be paid. This is not safe for th...

Incorrect setting of EthIBCDenom invalidates risk management limits

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the documentation, it is stated that: For risk management purposes, a swap will fail if the input coin amount exceeds a pre-defined limit 10 USDC, 10 USDT, 0.01 ETH or if the swap amount limit is not defined. However, in the code it defined as:...

tryCatchLimit can forward less than the specified gasLimit due to how CALL* opcode forward gas

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description To understand the issue I strongly recommend the lecture of this article. In particular, sections "Insufficient Gas Griefing Attack" and "Workaround Against “Insuficient Gas Griefing attack”". The problem relays on the fact that we cannot be sure th...

M-07 Unmitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-07: Issue NOT mitigated Mitigated issue M-07: Incorrect slippage check in the AMO2.rebalanceUp can be attacked by MEV Fix: code-423n4/2023-05-xeth@630114e The issue is that since the pool is rebalanced around an imbalanced ratio with 68%-75% xET...

M-05 Unmitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details The mitigation makes accrueDrip is disable until the totalSupply 0. But the lastReport blocknumber is not updated. So all the dripped rewards still are collected by the first staker when the drip modifier is called at the second time. Impact If wxETH drips when...

expirationPeriod in the strategy contracts is not checked when calling LlamaCore.execute

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If executionPeriod is set to an extremely short time or even 0, then all actions can never be executed. Proof of Concept There are 7 states in an Action flow: Active, Canceled, Failed, Approved, Queued, Expired, Executed. Generally, the sequence goes lik...

The low-level call returns true if the address does not exist

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact As written in the Solidity documentation , the call, delegatecall and staticcall low-level functions return true as its first return value if the account being invoked does not exist, as part of the design of the EVM. The existence of the account must be...

Missing Role Validation in LlamaAbsoluteStrategyBase.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Bug Description: The LlamaAbsoluteStrategyBase contract serves as a base contract for Llama strategies and implements various functions for action creation, approval, disapproval, and cancellation. However, it fails to validate the roles used in some critical...

LlamaRelativeQuorum isActionApproved / isActionDisapproved check condition error

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact LlamaRelativeQuorum isActionApproved / isActionDisapproved check condition error: quantity holders. The two cannot be compared. In general quantity holder, so the approver was lower than expected. Proof of Concept diff --git...