Payment multiple functions do not check the caller

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Multiple functions in the Payment contract do not check the caller, for example, an attacker can directly call refundETH to transfer assets in the contract function refundETH external payable //@audit if addressthis.balance 0...

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...

Unprotected payable functions in Payment.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In Payment.sol contract unwrapWETH and sweepToken functions are without any access control. They are public and and doesn't validate that it's being called by any permissioned account. The result is that anyone can steal tokens. Proof of Concept 25:...

Anyone can withdraw all the WETH sent to Payment contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can withdraw all the WETH sent to Payment contract Proof of Concept 1. Someone send WETH to Payment contract 2. Attacker will call unwrapWETH with amountMinimum = WETH balance of Payment contract and recipient = any attacker controlled address 3...

withdraw() function uses faulty burn() function for transfer and it has no access control implemented.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The withdraw function has no access control implemented and can be called by anyone. It also uses the burn function to transfer funds. A Malicious actor can withdraw the balance of Lendgine.sol. Proof of Concept Alice a malicious actor uses a contract to...

Modifier onlyMinter() implementation is faulty

Lines of code Vulnerability details The current implementation of the modifier onlyMinter will not revert because the "require" part is missing, therefore any user will be able to access the minting functions in RabbitHoleTickets.sol and RabbitHoleReceipt.sol. Impact Any user than the allowed...

Wrong modifier

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact H-01 The modifier that is declared in RabbitHoleReceipt.sol and RabbitHoleTickets.sol files has no impact and has not protection to methods that is used for. This modifier is used in 3 functions. Having no check would mean that this modifier will always ...

ONLYMINTER MODIFIER WILL NOT REVERT WHEN MSG.SENDER IS NOT MINTERADDRESS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact onlyMinter in RabbitHoleReceipt.sol and RabbitHoleTickets.sol is noted to be housing only msg.sender == minterAddress in its code logic. RabbitHoleReceipt.solL58-L61 RabbitHoleTickets.solL47-L50 modifier onlyMinter msg.sender == minterAddress; ; It will...

The onlyMinter modifier checks the wrong condition.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In RabbitHoleReceipt.sol and RabbitHoleTicket.sol, receipts and tickets can be minted by anyone. Proof of Concept The first line inside the modifier can be passed without reverting for any callers. modifier onlyMinter msg.sender == minterAddress; ; Tools...

Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-05: Issue not mitigated --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Mitigation of M-07: Issue not mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details The sponsor confirmed but disputed Medium severity, and did not provide any PRs addressing it, so the same issue remains in the new code. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Mitigation of H-02: See comments

Lines of code Vulnerability details The PR applies the recommended mitigation from the finding, but doesn't take into account the rounding issue identified in M-09 Impact If the price the NFT is bought for is not an exact multiple of the filledQuantities, there will be a loss of precision, and...

Attacker can delay proposal rejection

Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings24 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Loss of ETH for proposer when it is a contract that doesn't have fallback function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details The issue that is described in code-423n4/2022-12-tessera-findings40 was not mitigated and still applies like it is described there. --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Overflow Vulnerability in Splits Contract Due to Maximum Splits Receivers Limitation (_MAX_SPLITS_RECEIVERS = 200)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If more than 200 splits receivers are added for a single user, the constant MAXSPLITSRECEIVERS will be exceeded, causing unexpected behavior in the contract uint256 internal constant MAXSPLITSRECEIVERS = 200; Proof of Concept a. Create an array of splits...

Fee on transfer tokens will not behave as expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact According to Whitepaper 1.1 Permissionless: "In Timeswap, liquidity providers can create pools for any ERC20 pair, without permission. It is designed to be generalized and works for any pair of tokens, at any time frame, and at any market state ... If fe...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from #598 [1674741121008]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 598 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Low: 1.deposit check wrong variant function deposituint256 assets, address receiver public virtual returns uint256 shares requireshares minDepositAmount, "VALUETOOSMALL"; requireassets minDepositAmount,...

Upgraded Q -> M from #258 [1674661917738]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 258 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 Use of deprecated functions Impact The contract uses deprecated function latestAnswer. Such functions might suddenly stop working if no longer supported. Impact: Deprecated API stops working. Prices cannot be...

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 #268 [1674418407759]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 268 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-02 Front running attacks by the owner Project has one possible attack vectors by the onlyOwner: dao.Fees , burnsFees , referralFees , botFees variable; It determines the fees rate The default deposit fees equal zer...

Upgraded Q -> M from #445 [1674423223201]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 445 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: 5 Function crossChain in GovNFT should have limit for maximum tokens allowed to be transferred, because of gas limit in the dest chain. if a user transferred a lot of tokens because there was two loop inside each oth...

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...

Inadequate Maximum Orders Value in Determining Minimum Buy Amount Per Order

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The MAXORDERS constant is defined as a uint96, which has a maximum value of 2^96-1. This means that the maximum number of orders that the contract is able to handle is 2^96-1. However, if the number of orders exceeds this maximum value, the calculation f...

Deployer will deploy proxies that cannot be upgraded

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In contrast to the Test File, in which you're deploying the proxies directly, the setup from Deployer will keep the Proxy Admin to a zero value. Meaning nobody will be able to upgrade them after the deployment. See POC below to show that the admin slot i...

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...

Reentrancy in safeTransferFrom() in ClearingHouse.sol allows the attacker to withdraw the collateral, while still owning the borrowed assets.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Calling the function safeTransferFrom and passing in a custom, attacker controlled payment token allows the malicious actor to perform reentrancy. the following function clears the attacker of all debt,...

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...

Redeemers can reject receiving air-drop collateral token, make function completeRedemptions() failing and wasting gas of admin

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function completeRedemptions is used by admin account to distribute collateral to users and also to refund redemption requests if the redemption cannot be serviced. Redeemers will received funds from assetSender in air-drop manner, if collateral token is...

Future Epoch Pending Redemption Balance Set Vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The setPendingRedemptionBalance function allows an admin to set the balance of a user's pending redemption for a specific epoch. However, it does not properly check that the epoch being set is in the past and not in the future. An attacker could...

Upgradeable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since the contract OndoPriceOracle.sol is a critical contract it should have room to be upgrade, either use the library @openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable or leave a storage gap. An example of this would be to add this line: uint25650 private gap; Proof...

Upgraded G -> 3 from #90 [1673938387276]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 90 as 3 risk. The relevant finding follows: fenkge;gk --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Not resetting totalBurned in CashManger will break user redemptions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Not resetting totalBurned in CashManger will break user redemptions The current implementation in CashManager.completeRedemptions is not updating the totalBurned amount in an epoch if there was a refund. The problem is, that if not all user redemptions can be...

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...

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...

TokenggAVAX share price manipulation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reporting this issue as medium severity as a leak of value. Solmate's ERC4626 convertToShares calculates shares as assets totalSupply / totalAssets. It is possible to exploit this function by depositing 1 wei of asset in exchange 1 share totalSupply = 1...

Underlying With Non-Standard Decimals Not Supported

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Arithmetic operations are performed with the assumption that the token always has 18 decimals. Proof of Concept It would not be possible without using 18 decimal places of the base capital. Tools Used vscode Recommended Mitigation Steps Consider whether...

purchaseLiquidationAuctionNFT() may incorrectly returned the Auction funds to the liquidated user

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact may incorrectly returned the Auction funds to the liquidated user in purchaseLiquidationAuctionNFT, After someone purchases the auction NFT, the amount of the auction received will be distributed. In the existing logic, when the amount of the auction is...

PaprController is vulnerable to reentrancy attacks

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious users can steal PAPR tokens through reentrancy attacks. Proof of Concept Function PaprController.purchaseLiquidationAuctionNFT may trigger a reentrancy becase it calls ERC721.safeTransferFrom in NFTEDA.purchaseNFT:...

Upgraded Q -> M from #163 [1671458931869]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 163 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: TOKEN TRANSFERS DO NOT VERIFY THAT THE TOKENS WERE SUCCESSFULLY TRANSFERRED Some tokens like zrx do not revert the transaction when the transfer/transferfrom fails and return false, which requires us to check the...

Attacker can make group pay for tokenID that is not intended.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description purchase in GroupBuy.sol executes the purchase call for the group. There are two possibilities for which tokenIDs can be bought in GroupBuy: 1. If the group is for a specific NFT, the tokenID is the value in pool.merkleRoot variable. 2. If the group...

Only one GroupBuy can ever use USDT or similar tokens with front-running approval protections

Lines of code Vulnerability details Calling approve without first calling approve0 if the current approval is non-zero will revert with some tokens, such as Tether USDT. While Tether is known to do this, it applies to other tokens as well, which are trying to protect against this attack vector...

Rounding down leads to breakage of the xy curve calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When needing to calculate the inputAmount required to receive a certain amount of fractional tokens called outputAmount, we are deriving from the xy = k curve used on the Uniswap V2 protocol. Proof of Concept Some maths: The so-called curve equation is: ...

Attacker can DOS OptimisticListing with very low cost

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The only check on a new proposal is that it is priced lower than the existing proposal. It does not constrain on the collateral supplied except it will revert in verifyBalance if set to 0. Anyone can block normal proposal creation by creating a proposal...

Attackers can obtain rewards through the NFT of the flash loan winning ID

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract judges whether the user has won a prize, but only judges whether the owner of the nft with the specified ID is equal to the user's address user == IERC721EnumerableUpgradeablesettings.drawingToken.ownerOf request.currentChosenTokenId ; But i...

Raffle is fair only if tokenRange is a power of 2.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Based on the contract logic, the raffle works by sampling a value $ x \in \mathbbZ | 0 \leq x \lt 2^256 $ aka uint256 from a uniform distribution provided by Chainlink VRF, then applying modulo tokenRange, generating a new value $ y \in \mathbbZ | 0 \leq...

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,...

Winning NFT owner/admin can rug pull attack or DoS attack on winner by removing the winning NFT.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Given the current logic, it is possible to call the redraw method even after recoverTimelock has passed. If the owner does so, the contract will select a new winner for the winning NFT. But it will be up to the owner to give as much time to the winner to...

[NAZ-H1] Reentrancy From Use of _safeMint()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The mint function is used to mint a new position NFT and is only callable by minter. This function uses safeMint to mint these position NFTs which has been known in the past to have Reentrancy issues. Proof of Concept The dangers of surprising code by...

Malicious drawingToken can make bad actor claim the raffle NFT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description Malicious drawingToken address passed into factory.makeNewDraw can claim the raffle NFT. It can be exploited via a social engineering attack or another scenario is that a malicious owner can pretend to make a raffle with a malicious drawingToken and...