_transferFromCaller is not compatible with USDT and similar tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details transferFromCaller is not compatible with USDT and similar tokens Summary Setting directly typeuint256.max won't work for USDTTether. This is done at both transferFromCaller: NFTDriver.solL289 AddressDriver.solL174 Description Some tokens like USDT do not work...

Support for fee-on-transfer tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The AddressDriver.sol do not support fee-on-transfer tokens. If the asset is a fee-on-transfer token, tokens received from users could be less then the amount specified in the transfer. The protocol could suffer a loss of funds. Proof of Concept function...

Use abi.encode instead of abi.encodePacked to prevent data collisions for object hashing

Lines of code Vulnerability details M-01 Use abi.encode instead of abi.encodePacked Impact hash collisions on the data stored for object hashing Proof of Concept From the solidity documentation: If you use keccak256abi.encodePackeda, b and both a and b are dynamic types, it is easy to craft...

Critical Vulnerability exposed Reentrancy attack allowing unlimited Fund Withdrawals.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function register where it transfers a fixed amount of $NOTE tokens 100 $NOTE to the cidFeeWallet address without checking the reentrancy status. An attacker can repeatedly call this function to drain the contract balance...

No-check liquidity is != 0

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Proof of Concept Tools Used manual Recommended Mitigation Steps --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Unprotected Ether Withdrawal

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Due to missing or insufficient access controls, malicious parties can withdraw some or all Ether from the contract account. This bug is sometimes caused by unintentionally exposing initialization functions. By wrongly naming a function intended to b...

First depositor can manipulate the invariant of a pool

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact someone can call deposit upon pool creation, with a custom liquidity variable and small first deposit to change the behaviour of the pool, as a way to attack the protocol. even if a pool is setup and initialized correctly, there is not guaranteed that th...

Possibly Susceptible to Reentrancy Attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. No protection against reentrancy attacks, which could allow an attacker to exploit the contract's logic by calling functions in the contract before the original call is completed. Proof of Concept To...

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...

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...

Lack of flexibility in updating cycle length leading to potential contract redeployment.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact function cycleOfuint32 timestamp private view returns uint32 cycle unchecked return timestamp / cycleSecs + 1; and function currCycleStart private view returns uint32 timestamp uint32 currTimestamp = currTimestamp; // slither-disable-next-line weak-prng...

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. //...

Mitigation of M-06: Issue not mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-06: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Improper check for Zero Address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. There is an error in the if statement of the referenced line of code. It should check for zero address and return an error. This will prevent the creating a new contract for an existing option pair, eve...

ERC1155Enumerable._removeTokenEnumeration() checks the removal condition wrongly.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ERC1155Enumerable.removeTokenEnumeration checks the removal condition wrongly. As a result, the tokens with 0 total supply won't be removed from allTokens array at all. Proof of Concept removeTokenEnumeration checks the removal condition like below when ...

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...

The transferFeesFrom function does not check if the "from" address is the actual owner of the position before transferring the fees.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The code Doesn't check if the from address is the owner of the position before transferring the fees. If the from address is not the owner of the position, an attacker could potentially transfer fees from another user's position without their permission...

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 #313 [1674663275698]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 313 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-07 centralization risks The owner address of PoolAddressesProvider contract has control over many dangerous functions. Such as: setAddressAsProxy, setPoolConfiguratorImpl and updatePoolImpl which are responsable fo...

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...

_locateCurrentAmount function, there is an assembly operation that is dividing by duration without a zero check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the locateCurrentAmount function, there is an assembly operation that is dividing by duration without a zero check, which could cause a division by zero error. Proof of Concept // Check for division by zero requireduration != 0, "Division by zero...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from #351 [1674418158719]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 351 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Stable Vault cannot accept tokens with more then 18 decimals because of this lines: Consider using different conversion formula. For example: amount 1e18 / 10token.decimals for deposit and amount 10token.decimals /...

Upgraded Q -> M from #100 [1674425909347]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 100 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The wrong amount of LP tokens will be minted and the wrong amount of A/B tokens will be deposited. Proof of Concept According to the PDF document provided, the number of LP...

Reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can be the owner of conduitcontroller contract Proof of Concept function acceptOwnership has re-entrancy vulnerability Look at this : function acceptOwnership Executes twice to make the caller as owner. Look at this = emit OwnershipTransferre...

A transfer-on-fee token or a deflationary/rebasing token, causing the received amount to be less than the accounted amount. For instance, a deflationary tokens might charge a certain fee for every safetransfer() or safetransferFrom().

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ALice calls stakeamount = 100 deflationary Tokens. Because the token has a fee upon transfer, StRSR receives only 99 tokens and staked that amount to mint but user thought that receives 100 tokens . But reality token received for stRSR only 99 . Proof of...

user funds loss in withdraw() of StRSR because code don't revert when calculated rsrAmount is zero

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function withdraw in StRSR completes an account's unstaking. but when calculated amount of RSR token is 0 code still burn user draftRSR and returns. This would cause users small amount of deposits to get burned and user won't receive any funds. as withdr...

createLien() The first LienToken does not check for liquidationInitialAsk and maxPotentialDebt

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Illegal liquidationInitialAsk and maxPotentialDebt may result in bids amount do not cover the debt Proof of Concept With the current implementation, the first LienToken does not check liquidationInitialAsk and maxPotentialDebt function appendStack...

commitToLien() can pass in an illegal payment token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Stealing vault assets Proof of Concept There are currently two ways to create new Liens in the system 1. user call AstariaRouter.commitToLiens, the internal implementation of this is through VaultImplementation.commitToLien to create 2. user can call...

Malleable value in S

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Signature Proof of Concept ECDSA's malleability can be used to create new signatures under specific conditions. This post explores how serious these attacks can be. Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps Recomendation is to be added additional check for...

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...

SmartAccount wallet creation can be backdoored

Lines of code Vulnerability details At wallet creation time, an attacker can temporarily swap the address of the entrypoint to install a backdoor in the form of a registered module in the wallet. Since wallets don't necessarily need to be created by their owners, an attacker can frontrun the wall...

The isContract function in LibAddress that uses EXTCODESIZE can be vulnerable to the "Contract Creation Code Execution" attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It will allow the attacker to potentially execute malicious code in the implementation contract at Proof of Concept contract Victim function isContractaddress account public view returnsbool uint32 csize; assembly size := extcodesizeaccount return csize ...

TokenggAVAX.sol : First depositor can break minting of shares

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...

Owner may lose funds if Minipool is recreated before funds are withdrawn

Lines of code Vulnerability details The createMinipool function of the MinipoolManager contract can be used to reinitialize an existing minipool and potentially lose user funds. If the given nodeID has an existing minipool index, then the state for the minipool is reset: if minipoolIndex != -1...

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...

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...

PRICES CAN BE MANIPULATED WHEN LIQUIDITY IS VERY LOW

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Base and fractional token prices in the pool can be manipulated and set to values severely deviating from the originally intended price ratio right after the pool has been created. At this point, liquidity in the pool is deemed zero or exceptionally thin...

Reentrancy issue #2: Functions remove() and sell() are vulnerable to reentrancy attack if baseToken implement a call to receiver in _beforeTokenTransfer().

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...

xyk invariant does not hold after calls to buy() and sell()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Functions buyQuote and sellQuote are defined like this in Pair.sol: /// @notice The amount of base tokens required to buy a given amount of fractional tokens. /// @dev Calculated using the xyk invariant and a 30bps fee. /// @param outputAmount The amount...

User can send a proposal and instantly take back their collateral, keeping the proposal active without risking any Raes amount.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In OptimisticListingSeaport.sol, users call propose to set a new proposal. The pendingBalance is updated immediately for the calling proposer: // Sets collateral amount to pending balances for withdrawal pendingBalancesvaultproposedListing.proposer ...

Unlimited minting of fractional tokens by calling Pair.wrap() multiple times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can mint an unlimited amount of fractional tokens and break the protocol by selling the tokens. Proof of Concept NFTs can be traded for 1e18 fractional tokens by calling the function wrap. Wrap calls validateTokenIdstokenIds, proofs which in turn ru...

Groupbuy: Construction of merkle tree allows some unintended IDs to be bought

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In GroupBuy.purchase, when no proof is provided, it is required that the provided token ID is equal to the stored merkleRoot: if purchaseProof.length == 0 // Hashes tokenId to verify merkle root if proof is empty if bytes32tokenId != merkleRoot revert...

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,...

Pending owner can front-run current owner when current owner wants to cancel the ownership transfer.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact OwnableUpgradable contract has been modified to transfer ownership in a two-step ownership transfer way. This introduces an issue of front-run when admin adds a pendingOwner but later on decides to cancel the ownership transfer. Pending owner can become...

DoS after creating 100 raffles under one subscriptionID

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a user adds new consumer, function VRFCoordinatorV2::addConsumer is called: function addConsumeruint64 subId, address consumer external override onlySubOwnersubId nonReentrant // Already maxed, cannot add any more consumers. if...

Weak PRNG

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Weak PRNG due to a modulo on block.timestamp, now or blockhash. These can be influenced by miners to some extent so they should be avoided. src/VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol if settings.recoverTimelock block.timestamp + MONTHINSECONDS 12 revert...

ERC20 approvals may need to be set to 0 beforehand

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are some instances where there is an ERC20 approval for a max uint256 amount. ERC20 tokens such as USDT require the address allowance to be set to 0 beforehand, so this would cause reverts for those tokens. Proof of Concept -Token such as USDT gets...

The raffle could be slightly unfair as the owner of NFT ID which is closer to drawingTokenStartId could have more chance to win

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The raffle could be slightly unfair as the owner of NFT ID which is closer to drawingTokenStartId could have more chance to win. Proof of Concept As written in , "We want to raffle away a single NFT token based off of another NFT collection or drawingTok...