The owner is a single point of failure and a centralization risk

Lines of code 56, 109, 127, 172, 219, 250, 115, 131, 154, 116, 131https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapiocaz-audit/blob/bcf61f79464cfdc0484aa272f9f6e28d...

Unchecked return value of low-level call()/delegatecall()

Lines of code 120, 141, 411, 184, 160, 189, 152, 444, 625, 638https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/tapioca-bar-audit/blob/2286f80f928f41c8bc189d0657d74ba83286c668/contract...

Return values of transfer()/transferFrom() not checked

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Not all IERC20 implementations revert when there's a failure in transfer/transferFrom. The function signature has a boolean return value and they indicate errors that way instead. By not checking the return value, operations that shou...

Unsafe use of transfer()/transferFrom() with IERC20

Lines of code 377, 509, 491, 530, 42, 50 Vulnerability details Some tokens do not implement the ERC20 standard properly but are still accepted by most code that accepts ERC20 tokens. For example Tether USDT's transfer and transferFrom functions on L1 do not return booleans as the specification...

Unverified Primitives

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Interacting with unverified or malicious Ocean primitives could result in loss of funds or incorrect computations. Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates...

_determineTransferAmount does't support low decimal tokens.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact determineTransferAmount does't support low decimal tokens. Transfer amount will be force set to incorrect amount. Proof of Concept In process of erc20Wrap,in order to support different decimal tokens, the contract use determineTransferAmount to get...

Usage of _safeMint in NextGenCore@_mintProcessing allows an attacker to reenter when onERC721Received is called

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can : Exceed the per address allowance in Fixed Price Sale, Exponential Descending Sale and Linear Descending Sale modes. Cause a loss for another user in Burn-to-Mint mode by accepting an offer when onERC721Received is triggered. Proof of...

No slippage check while removing liquidity from Curve Pool

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The hardcoded value of 0 for the minamount parameter in the removeliquidityonecoin function of the Curve pool can have significant effects on user funds. When users are removing liquidity from the curve pool, the minamount parameter represents the minimu...

CurveTricryptAdapter::primitiveOutputAmount & Curve2PoolAdapter::primitiveOutputAmount can swap without slippage tolerance

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact While there is a “Slippage protection” implementation in the contract if uint256minimumOutputAmount outputAmount revert SLIPPAGELIMITEXCEEDED; There is no validation that minimumOutputAmount is not set to 0. This can result in lost of funds. Although Oce...

latestAnswer() may return stale values

Lines of code 121, 122, 123, 124, 51 Vulnerability details latestAnswer only returns the latest answer or zero, and thus there is no way to tell whether the value is stale or not. Use latestRoundData instead, and check whether the latest timestamp is within your protocol's limits. File:...

Contracts are vulnerable to fee-on-transfer accounting-related issues

Lines of code 359, 448, 509, 530, 42, 797, 162 Vulnerability details The functions below transfer funds from the caller to the receiver via transferFrom, but do not ensure that the actual number of tokens received is the same as the input amount to the transfer. If the token is a fee-on-transfer...

latestAnswer() may return stale values

Lines of code 121, 122, 123, 124, 51 Vulnerability details latestAnswer only returns the latest answer or zero, and thus there is no way to tell whether the value is stale or not. Use latestRoundData instead, and check whether the latest timestamp is within your protocol's limits. File:...

Use of transferFrom() rather than safeTransferFrom() for NFTs in will lead to the loss of NFTs

Lines of code 230, 342, 514, 536 Vulnerability details Impact The EIP-721 standard says the following about transferFrom: /// @notice Transfer ownership of an NFT -- THE CALLER IS RESPONSIBLE /// TO CONFIRM THAT to IS CAPABLE OF RECEIVING NFTS OR ELSE /// THEY MAY BE PERMANENTLY LOST /// @dev...

Array is push()ed but not pop()ed, and is iterated over

Lines of code 96, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485, 485https://github.com/Tapioca-DAO/ta...

Using block.timestamp as the deadline/expiry invites MEV

Lines of code 307 Vulnerability details Impact Passing block.timestamp as the expiry/deadline of an operation does not mean "require immediate execution" - it means "whatever block this transaction appears in, I'm comfortable with that block's timestamp". Providing this value means that a malicio...

Max withdrawable calculation is incorrect in asD contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The implementation of the max withdrawable amount is incorrect as it divides the calculation by the wrong denominator, leading to an incorrect result and a potential denial of service due to an overflow. Impact In the Application Specific Dollar protoco...

asD TOKEN CREATOR CAN PROFIT UNFAIRLY FROM THE cNote TOKENS DIRECLTY TRANSFERRED TO THE asD.sol CONTRACT

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The asD.withdrawCarry function is used to withdraw the interest that accrued in the asD contract in the form of NOTE tokens. Only the owner of the asD token is able to withdraw the interest accrued since the withdrawCarry is controlled by the onlyOwner...

Unchecked cToken mint in mint() risks imbalance, breaking 1:1 peg reserve backing.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact mint does not check return code from cToken.mint. If minting fails, contract could have imbalance between cTokens and minted asD tokens. Attacker mints asD but underlying cToken mint fails. Result is loss of 1:1 peg backing. Proof of Concept In the mint...

Lost fees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Buyers do not get any split of the fees. It is instead to be distributed to holders. But holder splits on successive buys are partially lost to the contract and cannot be recovered. Proof of concept The buyer's rewardsLastClaimedValueidmsg.sender is...

buggy reward calculation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This is very similar to an inflation attack. Rewards increase whenever splitFees is being called which is anywhere buy/sell/mint/burn. The calculation is done like this: shareDataid.shareHolderRewardsPerTokenScaled += shareHolderFee 1e18 / tokenCount;...

No way to withdraw from the strategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact NodeDelegator does not have any functions to withdraw the underlying from the strategy. It does have a function to transfer ERC-20 tokens to the LRTDepositPool, assuming the eigen layer strategy mints ERC20 tokens to represent the share of invested funds...

Mint amount calculation in deposit is incorrect

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The calculation in the deposit function of the DepositPool contract is flawed as it factors the deposited amount into the RSETH price to calculate the amount to mint. Impact When a user deposits in the DepositPool contract, the amount of RSETH to mint i...

First depositor will get twice more minted token for the same amount deposited

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The initial depositor stands to gain an unfair amount of RSETH tokens compared to later depositors, as a result of the fixed exchange rate of 1 ether when no RSETH supply exists i.e., no minted tokens are available. Consequently, the first deposit will...

Unchecked constructor arguments can make a contract unworkable

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the NextGenCore contract constructor, there is no check that a valid admin contract is set using NextGenAdmins::isAdminContract. If the contract address in the adminsContract constructor is set incorrectly, it is not possible to call admin functions i...

claimAuction can be reverted by any bidder, locking all funds and the prize.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description claimAuction is used to redeem the auction's ERC-721 and refund all bidders that didn't win the auction. In this process, callbacks are sent to every single bidder via low-level calls that triggers fallbacks/receives and ERC721.safeTransferFrom. So,...

Multiple instances of reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This can lead to massive loss of funds and asset in Nextgen. Proof of Concept There are multiple instances of reentrancy in NextGenCore.sol, MinterContract.sol and AuctionMemo.sol. These reentrancy is due to the use of ERC721 safeMint... for token transf...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #385 [1699689442074]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 385 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: L-04 ODSafeManager.allowSAFE function enables any allowed address to add/remove other allowed addresses Details The ODSafeManager.allowSAFE function is meant by design to allow/disallow any address to manage the safe...

Hosts should agree before performing operations like setting ragequit, vetoing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since a Party can have multiple hosts, they should agree before vetoing or setting rageQuit, to prevent a single compromised host from having absolute decision, just as is done when hosts accept a proposal Proof of Concept In PartyGovernanceveto and...

decreaseVotingPower() can be front-ran by an attacker to claim an amount of assets from the TokenDistributor more than he should be able to claim or withdraw more assets than he should be able to claim through rageQuit()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Overview of the vulnerability / PoC The function decreaseVotingPower in PartyGovernanceNFT does not have a front-running protection against a user claiming his share of a distribution or a user ragequitting using a token which is going to get it's voting power...

Arthimetic operation result in loss of voting power

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Carrying out calculation of voting power in function finalize based on division with value 1e4, then subtracting it with totalContributions and after that multiplying and dividing again will be a resultant that cause large precision error or even loss of...

PartyGovernanceNFT.burn is not updating the totalVotingPower

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The getSharedProposalStorage.governanceValues.totalVotingPower value defines the voting power cap that can be minted using mint in PartyGovernanceNFT. In a previous version of the protocol 2023-05-party this variable was...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #430 [1699028562977]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 430 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: It’s not clear which token the OD token will be paired with in order to determine the price in the uniV3Relayer contract. Then the following lines are problematic: baseAmount = uint12810...

Taking deposits hostage

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An initial attacker can gain the power to hold subsequent deposits into StakedUSDeV2 hostage, and release them at will e.g. for a ransom. Proof of concept The checkMinShares requirement called after any withdrawal and deposit function checkMinShares...

Limits on mint and redeem per block of USDe will lead to paralysis

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since the number of mint and redeem per block is limited, attackers can use scripts to squeeze out the quota with their own addresses. Thena cannot determine whether it is a normal user address or an attack address, causing the contract to be paralyzed. ...

Underflow can be occurred in codebase

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Because of the lack of the input validation, underflow can be occurred in the code. Proof of Concept function getRegisteredBorrowers uint256 start, uint256 end external view returns address memory arr uint256 len = borrowers.length; end = MathUtils.minen...

TRANSFERING FUNDS TO YOURSELF INCREASES YOUR BALANCE

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If transferred to yourself, it will cause your balance to increase, thus growing the token balance infinitely. Proof of Concept File: src/market/WildcatMarketToken.sol 54: transferfrom, to, amount; 74: accountsfrom = fromAccount; 78: accountsto =...

Borrower escapes delinquency penalty if no intermittent action happens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Once the market goes below required reserves, it is marked as delinquent only if an updateState action happens. Actions like market.updateState, executeWithdrawal, deposit, etc. have to happen else the protocol remains unaware of the market's delinquency...

Sanctionned funds keep earning APR, and protocol earning fees on these funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a user is sanctioned, if he has a scaledBalance not in the withdrawal queue, calling the nukeFromOrbit function will send sanctioned funds to an escrow contract, and these funds will keep earning APR. This is because when a deposit is executed, the...

[ADRIRO-NEW-M-03] Safe approval could lead to a denial of service in VotiumStrategy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The introduction of the SafeERC20 wrapper may lead to an accidental denial of service due to how the safeApprove function works internally. Impact The updated codebase uses the SafeERC20 wrapper provided by the OpenZeppelin contracts library to handle...

M-05 Unmitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-05: Mitigation Error, see comments Link to Issue: code-423n4/2023-09-asymmetry-findings45 Comments To mitigate M-05, the sponsor has added a delay of one epoch when the available CVX balance is enough to cover the withdrawal: 81: uint256...

use of correct modifier

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 function...

ODProxy contract can't grant safeRights (can't change the state of the called contracts) which will disable generating debts functionality

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol implements a proxy mechanism to enable only the Vault721 contract from transferring SAFEs, as each SAFE is represented by a NFV non fungible vault. This contract has only one function execute that makes delegatecalls to other contracts, so...

[ADRIRO-NEW-M-04] CVX tracking misses to account for rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The updated codebase now tracks CVX balances internally. While this is correctly handled in most operations, accounting fails to consider CVX tokens coming from claimed rewards. Impact CVX balances in the Votium strategy are now tracked internally. This...

Centralisation risk

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol has a onlyGovernor role with privileged rights to perform administrator tasks that can affect users. Proof of Concept The governorhave control over crucial function that can be updated and change according to the governor discretion. functio...

When Creating a Safe Via ODSafeManager::openSAFE, the User Proxy Is Wrongly Set As the Safe Owner

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact We can observe from Vault721::mint function that the input usr in ODSafeManager::openSAFE function needs to be a previously built proxy of the user address. function mintaddress proxy, uint256 safeId external requiremsg.sender == addresssafeManager, 'V72...

Wrong WAD calculation in AccountingEngine contract leading to start auction with selling amount minimum 100 time bigger than expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the Math library, 1 WAD is equal to 1e18 which is assumed 1 For example: wmul2e18, 4e18 = 8e18 In AccountingEngine contract, the devs assumed that 1 WAD is equal to 0.01 1%, 100 WAD is equal to 1 100%. Hence, the function auctionSurplus will make star...

The GovernorSettings are set to incorrect values

Lines of code Vulnerability details When ODGovernor is deployed the GovernorSettings is initialized with the initialVotingDelay, initialVotingPeriod and initialProposalThreshold. The problem is that the initialVotingDelay and initialVotingPeriod are set to incorrect values which are really small...

Upgraded Q -> 2 from #2142 [1698131545015]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 2142 as 2 risk. The relevant finding follows: LOW1: No whenNotPaused in redeem Technical Details Almost all state changing functions have whenNotPaused in the core contract but it is not the case for redeem. The NFT it interact with has a pause/unpause...

Console account cannot execute a transaction on a sub account unless it registers itself as an executor

Lines of code Vulnerability details The Executor is an account authorized to make module transactions on a subAccount via ExecutorPlugin. The executor is assigned/registered by the subaccount created by the console account. But the console account itself cannot execute the transaction & is...

DoS issue presented in Brahma's latest audit still has potential control flow paths that can lead to same vulnerability

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. Proof of Concept Following the "ConsoleAccount execTransaction" flow outlined via Brahma's Architecture diagram, as we can see: calling execTransaction calls checkTransaction function on...