function mint() in FERC1155 don't follow check-effect-interact pattern, it's possible to call protocol contracts after tokens minted and before totalSupply updated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function mint mints new fractions for an ID and is only callable by VaultRegistry. code mints tokens then updates totalSupply value. when minting contract may make external call to target address, in that external call contract state is wrong, tokens are...

Migration Module: Re-enter commit using custom token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact HIGH - Assets can be compromised directly. One can drain eth out from migration module to buyout module using custom made FERC1155 token. Proof of Concept proof of concept: testCommitReenterpoc custom made FERC1155 for the attack The proof of concept sho...

Buyout Module: ethBalance is not properly updated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact HIGH - Assets can be stolen directly. An attacker can steal eth from buyout module Proof of Concept proof of concept1: testCashSharepoc proof of concept2: testCashRepeatpoc The proof of concept1 shows that the same amount of fractions will result in...

Small scalar may make buyoutPrice calculation incorrectly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Buyout.start function, buyoutPrice is calculated using a scalar = 100. This small scalar and division rouding will reduce the precision of the formula significantly. Proof of Concept 1. Alice call start with msg.value = 1e18 and depositAmount = 4567...

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...

Uninitialized implementation for Vault can be destroyed

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Every Vault is a proxy of the same implementation contract. This implementation is deployed from VaultFactory but never initialized. /// @notice Initializes implementation contract constructor implementation = addressnew Vault; Someone can call init in t...

Upgraded Q -> M from 270 [1657580410834]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 270 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 6.L- Admin config ProtocolFee and gasFee missing max amount check which can be used to take fund from user With PROTOCOLFEEBPS 10000 more than 100%, the exchange can steal user WETH who might approve max WETH...

Distribution of reserved tokens may run out of gas

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If there are enough entries in the splits array, the function that distributes the reserved tokens will run out of gas, and the reserved tokens will be un-distributable until the current cycle is over, and the splits are changed. If cycles are long, the...

fund steal by crating a lot of bad long positions and then transferring NFT token of long position to all users and trick them(or by mistake) to click on exercise()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when fillOrder is called code mints two PuttyV2 NFT token, one for Long position and one for Short Position and It's possible to transfer this NFT tokens to others. exercising unwanted bad Long positions can cause users to lose funds and tokens, for...

User fund lose in addLiquidity() of LiquidityReserve by increasing (totalLockedValue / totalSupply()) to very large number by attacker

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function addLiquidity suppose to do add Liquidity for the staking Token and receive lrToken in exchange. to calculate amount of IrToken codes uses this calculation: amountToMint = amount lrFoxSupply / totalLockedValue but it's possible for attacker to...

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...

Malicious NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anybody can create a vault which fractionalizes their NFT. However, this process should go through a whitelist and review process because a maliciously implemented NFT contracts can reclaim ownership of the contract despite it technically being 'owned' b...

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...

[PNM-005] Reentrancy of function sell

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In function chargeFee, a potential reetrancy can be triggered by the factory. Since function sell invokes chargeFee in the middle of its function body, it potentially impacts the calculation, e.g., the totalSupply would be incorrect since the tokens...

whenNotPaused modifier missing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact whenNotPaused modifier is missing in both createBasket function NibblVaultFactory.solL80 and withdrawUnsettledBids function NibblVault.solL424 This means even when contract is in paused state this function will still be operational Note Other impacted...

Attackers can call update and grief the users from swapping tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Attackers can call update and grief the users from swapping tokens An attacker can specify reserve0 and revsere1 in update function and make it very small number and the user will have to supply zero tokens otherwise the function will fail. mitigation :...

Base rate update frequency can be bypassed by an admin

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Base rate update frequency can be bypassed by an admin. Above function require updateFrequency blocks to be passed. Proof of Concept function updateBaseRateuint newBaseRatePerYear public // check the current block number uint blockNumber = block.number;...

CNote updates the accounts after sending the funds, allowing for reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Having no reentrancy control and updating the records after external interactions allows for funds draining by reentrancy. Setting the severity to medium as this is conditional to transfer flow control introduction on future upgrades, but the impact is up to th...

Note: When _initialSupply ! = 0, the _mint_to_Accountant function will fail

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Note contract, if initialSupply ! = 0, totalSupply will overflow when the minttoAccountant function executes mintmsg.sender, typeuint.max constructorstring memory name, string memory symbol, uint256 totalSupply public name = name; symbol = symbol;...

User can accidentally permanently freeze the staked funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details User facing changeDuration function allows for setting any newDuration of a stake. However, only THREEMONTHS, SIXMONTHS and TWELVEMONTHS durations are visible to the system in all the subsequent logic. If a user accidentally sets any other duration, the...

Maker order buyer is forced to reimburse the gas cost at any tx.gasprice

Lines of code Vulnerability details uint256 gasCost = startGasPerOrder - gasleft + wethTransferGasUnits tx.gasprice; // if the execution currency is weth, we can send the protocol fee and gas cost in one transfer to save gas // else we need to send the protocol fee separately in the execution...

routerBalances[msg.sender][_local] can be inflated in repayAavePortal due to underflow in unchecked math

Lines of code Vulnerability details function repayAavePortal address local, uint256 backingAmount, uint256 feeAmount, uint256 maxIn, bytes32 transferId external uint256 totalAmount = backingAmount + feeAmount; // in adopted uint256 routerBalance = s.routerBalancesmsg.senderlocal; // in local //...

Admin can set arbitrarily high exchange fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Admins can attack users by frontrunning them Poc In the function setProtocolFeeInfinityExchange.sol function setProtocolFeeuint16 protocolFeeBps external onlyOwner PROTOCOLFEEBPS = protocolFeeBps;@audit medium emit NewProtocolFeeprotocolFeeBps; Admins ca...

Router Owner Could Steal All The Funds Within SponsorVault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof-of-Concept Assume the following: For simplity sake, only two 2 routers exist within Connext. Gas, relayer, callback fees and slippage are ignored. An attacker owns Router A. Router A has 1,000,000 oUSDC on Optimism Domain/Chain Router B has only 100 oUSDC...

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...

TODO: Hardcode claim.account = address(this)?

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Why you still has a TODO in the final code? TODO: Hardcode claim.account = addressthis? It is not implemented yet. claim.account may be any value, which may break the claiming process or let user steal fund that intended to be used in MyStrategy to their...

_harvest() performs market swaps without slippage control and is a subject to sandwich attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details As a result trades happen at a manipulated price and end up receiving fewer tokens than current market price dictates. Placing severity to medium as impact here is a partial fund loss conditional only on big enough asset amount to be swapped: sandwich attacks a...

_harvest rewards can be stolen because it doesn't implement any slippage bounds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Harvested funds stolen Proof of Concept harvest does not implement any kind of minimum out when calling the 3 consecutive swaps L249, L263 and L275 to get from auraBal to Aura. An attacker could easily sandwich the least liquid pool and steal all the...

User can bypass entryFee by sending arbitrary calldata to ParaSwap operator

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Any user is able to bypass the entryFee collection when using NestedFactory.create by passing in arbitrary calldata when using the ParaSwap router. High level, a user can pass in calldata to swap from a miniscule amount of input token to an ERC777 with...

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 ...

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...

cause users to revet right after deployment so they cant lend or borrow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact because of deployment hasMatured is false mintInternal reverts then cause users' to loose money on gas and users' cant lend which could lead to worse things and cause more attack vectors. Recommended Mitigation Steps check for delay after deployment or g...

IsWrappedFcash check is a gas bomb

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the isWrappedFCash check, the notionalTradeModule check whether the component is a wrappedCash with the following logic. try IWrappedfCashfCashPosition.getDecodedID returnsuint16 currencyId, uint40 maturity try...

Re-entrancy in wfCashERC4626.redeem() can lead to more gains in assets and/or shares

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The redeem function in wfCashERC4626.sol can be re-entered at the point of redeemInternal. Assume underlying tokens are sent to receiver after shares are burnt, and user re-enters redeem after redeemInternal is completed., P.S: there's a separate issue o...

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...

THE FIRST AMM STAKER MAY NOT RECEIVE ACCORDING REWARDS BECAUSE OF POOR CHECKPOINTS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The first staker within the AmmGauge may not get the rewards if the pool is not checkpointed right after he stakes and before he wants to claim the rewards. Proof of Concept A testing environment that reproduces how the protocol is going to be deployed a...

Unable to updateReward if there are too many rewardTokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If there are too many rewardTokens, updateReward might run exceed block gas limit and freeze fund since stake and withdraw have the updateReward modifier. Proof of Concept function addReward address rewardToken, address veAssetDeposits, address...

Total Supply is not guaranteed and is not deterministic.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The actual total supply of the token is random and depends on when executeInflationRateUpdate is executed. Proof of concept The README and tokenomic documentation clearly states that “The token supply is limited to a total of 268435456 tokens.”. However...

External contract calls inside loops may result in DoS.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Calls to external contracts inside a loop are dangerous especially if the loop index can be user-controlled because it could lead to DoS if one of the calls reverts or execution runs out of gas. Reference Proof of Concept for uint i = 0; i 0...

Bribe Rewards Not Claimable By Voters

Lines of code Vulnerability details Background Based on the code of Gauge contract, there are two types of rewards that can be claimed from the Gauge contract by its users. 1. Gauge Rewards - For users Liquidity providers who deposit their LP tokens a.k.a LP Token Staker into the liquidity gauge...

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...

_writeCheckpoint() in Gauge use wrong index to get prevVoteStatus

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact All the Voting values calculated by writeCheckpoint when it's not first checkpoint is going to set to False instead of account's last vote and because vote has been used in earned and reward calculation so reward distribution is going to be wrong too...

Owner's delegates should be decreased in _burn()

Lines of code Vulnerability details function burnuint tokenId internal requireisApprovedOrOwnermsg.sender, tokenId, "caller is not owner nor approved"; address owner = ownerOftokenId; // Clear approval approveaddress0, tokenId; // TODO add delegates // Remove token removeTokenFrommsg.sender,...

Bribe.sol is not meant to handle fee-on-transfer tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Should a fee-on-transfer token be added as a reward token and deposited, the tokens will be locked in the Bribe contract. Voters will be unable to withdraw their rewards. Proof of Concept Tokens are deposited into the Bribe contract using...

Reserve ratio isn't enforced after a trade execution

Lines of code Vulnerability details impact Users could get exposed to higher risk than desired and funds to withdraw from the vault could not be available Proof of Concept The reserve ratio is the parameter that ensures a percentage of the tokens is always available to be withdrawn from a pool by...

Aura.sol mint() function has a bug in the logic

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Intention is that during inflation period operator will or at least will be able to min EMISSIONSMAXSUPPLY token amount. Due to a logic bug amount of operator mintable tokens directly depends on how many tokens are minted by function minterMint and init...

ConvexMasterChef: When _lpToken is cvx, reward calculation is incorrect

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the ConvexMasterChef contract, a new staking pool can be added using the add function. The staking token for the new pool is defined using the lpToken variable. However, there is no additional checking whether the lpToken is the same as the reward tok...