[PNM-002] The expiry of the parent node can be smaller than the one of a child node, violating the guarantee policy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description By design, the child node's expiry can only be extended up to the parent's current one. Adding these restrictions means that the ENS users only have to look at the name itself's fuses and expiry without traversing the hierarchy to understand what...

Caller can receive liquidatorCut without transferring underlying when calling payBase()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If baseJoin's available balance is greater than callers' amount no underlying will be transferred but caller still gets liquidatorCut. This may also negatively impact the accounting since its updated under the assumption that the caller will transfer...

limits_.sum is not increased yet when performing limit check. Collateral may exceed the limit.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact limits.sum is not increased yet when performing limit check. Collateral may exceed the limit. There is a limit on how much collateral can be concurrently put at auction, but it is a soft limit. If the limit has been surpassed, no more vaults of that...

auction.start might be zero after a new auction is created.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Currently several functions consider the auction is valid when auction.start 0 and they don't work properly when auction.start = 0. Proof of Concept In this part, auction.start = 0 when block.timestamp = 232 exactly. Of course, this is an edge case and...

On the auction function start time is not set

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact During the code review, It has been noticed that auction start time block.timestamp is not set. All pay functions are checking If the auction.start is more than zero. From that reason, auction start time should be set at auction function. Proof of Concep...

Multiple auction can run on same vault - Collateral loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Due to insufficient checks, it is possible to run 2 auctions at same time. This can lead to loss of collateral for this vault as collateral quantity placed for auction will double Proof of Concept 1. User starts auction on vault id 1 which transfer...

Auctions can be started for same undercollateralized vault using different Witch contracts, which causes vault collateral loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Given that there are two deployed Witch contracts, two auctioneers are calling Witch 1 and Witch 2's auction functions for the same vault at similar times. Both transactions are included in the same block for which the governances of these Witch contract...

Upgraded Q -> M from 279 [1657955636898]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 279 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from 340 [1657877639047]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 340 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Swivel.setFee() is implemented wrongly.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Swivel.setFee is implemented wrongly. Swivel.feenominators won't be set as expected. Proof of Concept This function has a parameter "i" for the index of the new fee denomination but it isn't used during the update. Tools Used Solidity Visual Developer of...

Accidentally cancel order

Lines of code Vulnerability details Accidentally cancel order Impact Some market maker's limit order might be accidentally cancelled, and has to be resubmitted again. If the user did not do this on purpose, without knowing the fact that the order has been cancelled, it may lead to unexpected...

Collateral limit can be exceeded on a new auction

Lines of code Vulnerability details Witch's auction checks the total collateral limit before updating the structure with the current auction's data. This way this limit end up not being respected in result of auction call and can be actually breached for an arbitrary big amount as auction.ink tha...

Implementation does not exist

Lines of code fd36ce96b46943026cb2dfcb76dfa3f884f51c18/Marketplace/MarketPlace.solL156 Vulnerability details Impact ZcToken.withdraw and ZcToken.redeem will be reverted. Proof of Concept In ZcToken.withdraw and ZcToken.redeem, it calls redeemer.authRedeem. redeemer can be MarketPlace here. But...

fractionPrice precision can be lost if fractional tokens supply is high enough

Lines of code Vulnerability details Buyout's start now determine fractional token price by dividing native tokens amount by total supply number. Whenever the supply is high enough the precision can be lost, leading to severe losses to buyout proposer as his staked fractional tokens can be valued ...

Plugins can be abused, custom FERC1155 Token can be abused

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact HIGH - Assets can be stolen/compromised/lost directly. The creator of vault can add any functionality they want by plugins. Also they can bring any tokens for the vault. It can be used against users, or it will make exploits easier to execute. Proof of...

Upgraded Q -> H from 187 [1657760940788]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 187 as High risk. The relevant finding follows: 1. rescueETH cannot rescue Ether rescueETH sends msg.value to the destination address, which means it requires the caller of rescueETH to provide the Ether to send. Essentially the owner is directly paying the...

Proposal commitment takes all fractional balance in Migration contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Migration contract holds all fractional token balance of all proposals. Let's suppose a single vault has multiple proposals going on, and one gets committed. If the target price is satisfied, then a buyout starts // Checks if the current price is...

# an attacker can block stuff from the users from being able to do a buyout or sell fractoins or just main functions ,causing grief of users money and time

Lines of code Vulnerability details details uint256 endTime = startTime + PROPOSALPERIOD; if block.timestamp endTime 1.end time is almost block.timestamp so when an user calls this function 2. an attacker can blockstuff and cause the main functions not to happen maybe causing the...

Buyout Module: redeeming before the update of totalSupply will make buyout's current state success

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact MED - a hypothetical attack path with stated assumptions, but external requirements. Attacker can create a vault with successful buyout status and non zero supply. The attacker can sell the fractions and then simply withdraw the assets. Proof of Concept...

Native ETH transfer should use call() instead of transfer()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It might be impossible for some addresses to receive ETH via transfer because receiver address might have methods that exceed 2300 gas, ultimately leading to frozen funds. Proof of Concept Native transfer function has a limit of 2300 gas, which might not...

Buyout griefing can block almost all functionalities

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Everyone can start a Buyout for a vault by paying only 1 wei. For the next 4 days no other Buyout can start. If someone is fast enough, they can start another griefing buyout as soon as one finishes, meaning that it's possible to block the functionality ...

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from 270 [1657580270573]

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...

Upgraded Q -> M from 95 [1657055392912]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 95 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Upgraded Q -> M from 139 [1656985204675]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 139 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: 1. Buyouts that occur during the timestamp wrap will have valuation errors The blockTimestamp has a modulo applied, so at some point, there will be a timestamp with a value close to 2^32, followed by a timestamp...

Reentrancy vulnerabilities

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Reentrancy attacks can allow malicious actors to take over the control flow, and make...

Fund migration should trigger a rebase to prevent missing out on potential rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Rebasing allows the protocol to "distribute" profit/rewards to Yieldy and Foxy token holders by increasing the supply of tokens and increasing the balance of each token holder relative to the token balance creditBalances. The order of rebasing and...

[PNM-003] _totalStakedBefore_ and _totalStakedAfter_ are the always the same

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description It can be medium or high according to the off-chain logic which is not avaiable for the contest. Specifically, rebases can only be updated by function storeRebase and the only callsite of function storeRebase is in function rebase. While we have...

removeAddress doesn't decrease the contracts.length

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contracts length will always increase because the removeAddress function just deleting the value inside the array and never decrease the length by calling pop method. This can lead to Dos when calling functions that doing loop on contracts storage:...

DoS attack on claiming rewards can lead to user never being able to claim

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept: the stake function can be called for a different recipient than msg.sender. Each time you stake tokens your warmUpInfo.expiry or the time when you are able to claim rewards grows by warmUpPeriod as is visible the last line here not the line wi...

Only the state() of the latest proposal can be checked

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact state function cannot view the state from any proposal except for the latest one. Proof of Concept requireproposalCount = proposalId && proposalId initialProposalId, "GovernorBravo::state: invalid proposal id"; Currently proposalCount needs to be bigger ...

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...

WETH.sol computes the wrong totalSupply()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Affected code: WETH.sol is almost copied from the infamous WETH contract that lives in mainnet. This contract is supposed to receive the native currency of the blockchain for example ETH and wrap it into a tokenized, ERC-20 form. This contract computes t...

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:...

Malicious Relayer Could Cause A Router To Provide More Liquidity Than It Should

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof-of-Concept Assume this is a fast-transfer path and the sequencer has a good reason e.g. some sophisticated liquidity load balancing algorithm to assign 3 routers to provide liquidity for a transfer of 90 DAI Therefore, each of them will provide 30 DAI...

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...

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...

Tokens with decimals larger than 18 are not supported

Lines of code Vulnerability details For tokens with decimals larger than 18, many functions across the codebase will revert due to underflow. function getPriceFromDexaddress tokenAddress public view returns uint256 PriceInfo storage priceInfo = priceRecordstokenAddress; if priceInfo.active uint25...

Owner cannot transfer ETH balance of the exchange

Lines of code Vulnerability details User called takeOrders and takeMultipleOneOrders functions accumulate native token fees over time. These fees end up being frozen on the contract balance. There is only one way for an owner to transfer them, a rescueETH function, that isn’t able to access ETH...

NO TIMELOCK ON setProtocolFee() CAN LEAD TO SELLERS LOSING THEIR NFTs

Lines of code Vulnerability details NO TIMELOCK ON setProtocolFee CAN LEAD TO SELLERS LOSING THEIR NFTs In InfinityExchange.sol, there is no timelock on setProtocolFee. This is the fee that is applied in orders, and determines how much the Exchange receives in fee VS how much the seller receives...

_sendTokenToBribesProcessor() doesn't check bribesProcessor's address. Could cause permanent loss of fund

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In sendTokenToBribesProcessor, it sends tokens to bribesProcessor. It seems to be ok because claimBribesFromHiddenHand will confirm that bribesProcessor is not address0. sweepRewardToken also triggers sendTokenToBribesProcessor. But it doesn’t check...

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 ...

Should it transfer underSpentAmount to _msgSender() instead of reserve?

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact underSpentAmount is dust amount, if being transferred to reserve without any state modification. These tokens might be lost. Normally, dust amount must transfer back to only msgSender as a best practice. Proof of Concept unchecked uint256 underSpentAmoun...

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...

receive function is unrestricted

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The receive function has not placed any restriction which means if any user accidentally sends any ETH to this contract then it is permanently freezed until timelock decides to release it by creating and approving a new transaction on timelock which...

Malicious Owner can steal all user funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Submitting as med risk because it would require malicious multisig, but there should never be absolute trust in any party especially when there's no reason fees would ever need to be that high anyways Impact Owner steals all of user funds Proof of Concept...

Upgraded Q -> M from 182 [1655245716777]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 182 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L-Can send ETH more than buyOption premium required Link. requiremsg.value = premium should be requiremsg.value == premium to prevent user send too much eth. Only beneficiary benefit from this. Contract should...

Upgraded Q -> M from 286 [1654474962848]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 286 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: No min/max fee rate Line Refrences Cally.solL119-121 Description Limits for the fee rate should be set to avoid mistakes when setting the fee. A fee rate that is over 100% could result in the exercise function n...

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 104 [1654443194486]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 104 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: transfer return value of a general ERC20 is ignored Need to use safeTransfer instead of transfer. As there are popular tokens, such as USDT that transfer/trasnferFrom method doesn’t return anything. The transfer...