Basket NFT have no name and symbol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Basket contract is intended to be used behind a proxy. But the ERC721 implementation used is not upgradeable, and its constructor is called at deployment time on the implementation. So all proxies will have a void name and symbol, breaking all...

_rejectBuyout() does not take buys and sells into account until next block, can lead to false effects due to timing

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Buyout that should be rejected will be allowed to happen. Proof of Concept Last user to call buy that could have pushed rejectBuyout to reject the buyout wont be accounted for because rejecBuyout is place before the minting of new tokens. Therefore even ...

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...

Stack too deep error within BaseV1-periphery.sol

Lines of code BaseV1-periphery.sol lines 323-341 Vulnerability details Impact Stack too deep error when using remove liquidity function, fixing issue allows for avoiding using optimizations thus increases the periphery contract's longevity/scalability. Proof of Concept function...

Upgraded Q -> M from 44 [1655746452853]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 44 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 3. Missing/Invalid validation checks Risk Low Impact Function ForgottenRunesWarriorsMinter.setPhaseTimes setups times for different phases of minting. Phases should be launched one after the other. Missing check:...

Overpaying ETH in InfinityExchange

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A user of the InfinityExchange contract can accidentally send more ETH than needed without the possibility to get the overpaid amount refunded. Proof of Concept if isMakerSeller && currency == address0 requiremsg.value = totalPrice, 'invalid total price'...

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...

Relayer Will Not Receive Any Fee If execute Reverts

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof-of-Concept Connext relies on the relayer to trigger the BridgeFacet.execute function on the destination domain to initiate the token transfer and calldata execution processes. Relayers pay for the gas cost to trigger the execute function, and in return fo...

Malicious relayer could exploit sponsor vaults

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Sponsor vaults drained Proof of Concept reimburseRelayerFees uses SponsorVault funds to repay users the fees they pay to relayers. A malicious relayer could create a large number of transactions with the max reimbursed relay fee specified in SponsorVault...

Ether can get lock on functions takeMultipleOneOrders and takeOrders

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Ether send by the user cang gets locks when taking order/s Proof of Concept If Bob use function takeMultipleOneOrders or takeOrders to buy and sends more ETH that it supposes to remaing ETH will be lost, also if the seller is selling for other token and...

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...

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 ...

Upgraded Q -> M from 205 [1655579891083]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 205 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: transfer and send methods are used inside the codebase. Since these methods use 2300 gas stipend which is not adjustable,it may likely to get broken when calling a contract's fallback function if any contract...

Loss of yield can occur due to not specifying minAmountsOut when exiting BAL/ETH pool

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When exiting the BAL/ETH pool, due to not specifying anything for minAmountsOut an attacker can frontrun the transaction and cause a large change in price in the pool. This in turn leads to a large impermanent loss which is realised when the strategy bur...

Upgraded Q -> M from 270 [1655579826704]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 270 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: Gas stipend for payable.send may be too low for contract wallets ETH withdrawals in both the minter and token contracts use payableaddress.send to transfer ether to the vault address. If the configured vault is ...

harvest() can be frontrun, to make the AURABAL token stuck

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the LOCKER contract https://etherscan.io/address/0x3Fa73f1E5d8A792C80F426fc8F84FBF7Ce9bBCACcode anyone can call getreward for any account, therefore an attacker can frontrun an authorized actor, by calling getrewardaddressmyStrategy, before the harves...

_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...

Attacker can steal money from the initializer function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Your Using old openzeplin Verision which the initializer function is vulnerable to and an attacker can call it twice after it’s been initliazed and since it approves max tokens to those contract. Which then after it’s first initialization the attacker...

Gitignore too low

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. Too short gitignore Tools Used Recommended...

cause an attacker to get a better deal on intrest rate on borrwoing and lending or cause txs' to revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact if the variable maturity in getMaturity function is a big number that gets put into uint40 and since its to big of a number it will revert because solidity ^0.8.0 dosn't allow overflow and on deployment hasMatured can be true because it very close to the...

Upgraded Q -> H from 63 [1655008454311]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 63 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: Function CoreCollection:initialize can be executed by owner after initialisation and state variables like mintFee, maxSupply can be changed to increase/decrease fee and supply, isForSale can be set to false to stop...

Users cannot initialize() a proxy with a currencyId with a different maturity

Lines of code Vulnerability details The wfCashBase.initialize sets the allowance for NotionalV2 to the assetToken and underlyingToken to the maximum using SafeApprove. However, according to , SafeApprove function requires that the current approval is 0 before setting the new one. Therefore, if a...

Upgraded Q -> M from 268 [1654474507101]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 268 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: High feeRate can break core protocol function PROBLEM There is no maximum input value on setFee in Cally.sol. But if the owner sets it to a uint greater than 1e18, the users will not be able to call exercice as...

Upgraded Q -> M from 124 [1654443300023]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 124 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: C4-007 : USE SAFEERC20.SAFEAPPROVE Impact This is probably an oversight since SafeERC20 was imported and safeTransfer was used for ERC20 token transfers. Nevertheless, note that approve will fail for certain tok...

Upgraded Q -> M from 87 [1654442977298]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 87 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: Issue 3 Low - Some tokens do not allow for Non-Zero to Non-Zero value approvals USDT, for example, will not allow approving a non-zero amount and then approving another non-zero amount. The approval must be reset...

Upgraded Q -> M from 124 [1654442937681]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 124 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: C4-006 : The Contract Should Approve0 first Impact Some tokens like USDT L199 do not work when changing the allowance from an existing non-zero allowance value. They must first be approved by zero and then the...

Lack of safeApprove(0) may prevent deposits and swapping of token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact OpenZeppelin’s safeApprove will revert if the account already is approved and the new safeApprove is done with a non-zero value. Users may be prevented from swapping tokens to Backd LPTokens a second time Proof of Concept There are multiple places...

Integer Overflow in Nonce Possible Via EIP 1271 Compliant Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current NonceManager deployed version does not expect a nonce to go as high to actually trigger an integer overflow and is therefore, unchecked. However, it is completely possible to have the nonce go as high with EIP 1271 contracts that hold the NFT...

Approving from non-zero to non-zero allowance will revert with OZ's safeApprove()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Transaction reverting. Proof of Concept OZ's implementation of safeApprove would throw an error if an approve is attempted from a non-zero value "SafeERC20: approve from non-zero to non-zero allowance": require value == 0 || token.allowanceaddressthis,...

Order partial fulfilling can be blocked by the first fulfiller

Lines of code Vulnerability details DOS attack is possible as OrderValidator.validateOrderAndUpdateStatus sets order's numerator and denominator based on an arbitrary fulfiller provided input. When there is a large bulk sale, an attacker can become one of the first buyers partial fulfillers and s...

call() should be used instead or transfer() on an address payable

Lines of code Vulnerability details This is a classic Code4rena issue: code-423n4/2021-04-meebits-findings2 code-423n4/2021-10-tally-findings20 code-423n4/2022-01-openleverage-findings75 Impact The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail...

There are multiple ways for admins/governance to rug users

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A malicious admin can steal user funds or lock their balances forever Even if the user is benevolent the fact that there is a rug vector available may negatively impact the protocol's reputation. Proof of Concept Unlike the original Convex code that goes...

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...

Lack of Access Restriction for Conduit Creation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Anyone can call the createConduit function in the ConduitController contract to create new channels and set the conduit owner. This is dangerous because a hacker can create a new conduit and set himself as the owner of the conduit. The hacker can use the...

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...

BathToken uninitialized rewardsVestingWallet leading to loss of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Contract BathToken.sol implements distributeBonusTokenRewards function that allows distributing non-underlying bath token incentives to pool withdrawers. In case of rewardsVestingWallet being set implementation triggers release function of...

[LidoVault.sol][_withdrawFromYieldPool] Should not call return receivedETHAmount before the require check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is possible that users cannot receive ETH if sending ETH to users is not successful because the require check is unreachable. Proof of Concept withdrawFromYieldPool function executes the following code if user requests ETH withdrawal. if asset ==...

Overexert on-chain slippage/loss control may cause users' funds to be frozen in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details requirewithdrawAmount = amount.percentMul9900, Errors.VTWITHDRAWAMOUNTMISMATCH; The GeneralVault.sol contract comes with a on-chain slippage/loss control to ensure the output amount is no more than 1% less of the requested amount. This can be a problem when the...

[WP-H0] Fake balances can be created for not-yet-existing ERC20 tokens, which allows attackers to set traps to steal funds from future users

Lines of code Vulnerability details function createVault uint256 tokenIdOrAmount, address token, ... external returns uint256 vaultId ... Vault memory vault = Vault ... ; // vault index should always be odd vaultIndex += 2; vaultId = vaultIndex; vaultsvaultId = vault; // give msg.sender vault tok...

Loss of funds due to beneficiary override to address(0) during transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Premiums or proceeds earned after the transfer will accrue to the zero address, instead of to the new vault owner, and the funds will be irrecoverable. Proof of concept vaultBeneficiariesvaultId is overridden to the zero address during transfer: File: Cally.sol...

Race condition in exercising the options

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Option buyers might never exercise their options with a bad actor vault owner, hence creating trust issues to the platform since the promised functionality causes only loss of funds. Proof of Concept Alice creates a vault for her high valued NFT. Bob buy...

Add max fee in setFee and emit event

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious owner can steal all ETH of a sell. Proof of Concept The function setFeeCallyNFT.sol is critical as it set the amount of ETH that the protocol will receive. A malicious owner can set the fee to 1e18 and all ETH after exercise will go to the owne...

A malicious user can create a vault that is actually empty

Lines of code Vulnerability details description A malicious user can call the createVault function to create a vault with an ERC20 token that returns false rather than revert on failed transfer. By specifying the tokenType parameter to be ERC721 the transferFrom function will be called rather tha...

No cumulative power check when updating valset

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When batches are submitted by validators in the current valset, they are checked for validity based on signatures and cumulative powers. Each validator in the valset has an associated power which can give certain validators more voting power than others...

Missing powerThreshold validation in function updateValset(in Gravity.sol) could cause the contract non-functional

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When the cumulative power of validators in newValset is less than or equal to statepowerThreshold, the checkValidatorSignatures function would fail. Eventually, submitBatch, submitLogicCall & updateValset would fail for the new set of validators. This wi...

Forget to remove account out of _roleMembers[role]

Originally submitted by warden TrungOre in 89, duplicate of 164. For get to remove account out of roleMembersrole --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Missing freshness validation in ETH price oracle

Originally submitted by warden horsefacts in 199, duplicate of 17. Missing freshness validation in ETH price oracle The ChainlinkUsdWrapperethPrice function does not check for a nonzero answer or validate that the price was returned in a recent round: ChainlinkUsdWrapperethPrice function ethPrice...

Creator of the contract could front run tax per capita to 100% of Yield rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Contract creator could steal all rewards using frontrunning Proof of Concept When a yield pool is created pool tax is set equal to global tax and funds are sent into the contract to pay for rewards. The contract creator could set tax to 100% in a...

FixedPricePassThruGate.sol All the msg.value should be pass thru to gate.beneficiary instead of gate.ethCost

Lines of code Vulnerability details In FixedPricePassThruGate.solpassThruGate, at L48 the msg.value is checked to be = gate.ethCost instead of == gate.ethCost, which makes it possible for the caller to send more than gate.ethCost. However, at L53 only the amount of gate.ethCost is passed thru to...

FixedPricePassThruGate locks excess ETH payments

Lines of code Vulnerability details The FixedPricePassThruGate accepts ETH amounts greater than or equal to the calculated price, but only forwards an amount exactly equal to the calculated price to the configured beneficiary address. Excess ETH sent through the gate will be permanently locked in...