Owner can stop user from claiming rewards in the Erc1155Quest

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact After completing their tasks users can mint a new receipt token which they can later claim reward with it using the claim function, this function can not be called when the Quest contract is paused so the users can't claim when quest contract is paused...

Malicious user can send the quest reward tokens to the protocol fee contract preventing users from claiming their rewards.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious user can take advantage of the function withdrawFee after the quest end time and successfuly send the quest reward tokens to the protocol fee contract preventing users from claiming their rewards. Proof of Concept Every receipt minted should...

Quest owner can withdraw the reward for unclaimed receipt.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Erc1155Quest.withdrawRemainingTokens will withdraw all tokens even if there are users who minted a receipt but didn't claimed their rewards before endTime Proof of Concept Whitelisted account creates a new ERC1155 quest. Whitelisted account becames the...

withdrawFee should only be allowed to called once.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the current implementation, the function withdrawFee can be called multiple times. It should only be allowed to called once. Calling more than once would let owner steal from legit users as there won’t be enough funds left for legit users to claim...

Mitigation of M-06: Issue not mitigated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mitigation of M-06: Issue not mitigated --- 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...

STORAGE LOCATION OF liquidityPosition OF ONE USER IS OVERWRITEN BY THE liquidityPosition OF ANOTHER USER

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the pool.sol contract under the transferFees function, the pool liquidity position of the msg.sender is assigned to the storage variable liquidityPosition. And this liquidityPosition is updated for new fee allocation and fee burning. The transaction f...

_currentIndex is incorrectly updated; breaking the ERC1155 enumerable implementation

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When minting and burning tokens,the ERC1155Enumerable implementation does not correctly update the following states: uint256 private allTokens; mappinguint256 = uint256 private allTokensIndex; mappingaddress = uint256 internal currentIndex; In particular...

User receives lesser number of Long Tokens on burning Pool liquidity resulting in loss of user funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Protocol currently uses 2 levels of callbacks for burning Pool liquidity: Inner callback - timeswapV2PoolBurnChoiceCallback function in Line 438 of Pool.sol allows user to specify long0 & long1 amount such that long0 + long1 longAmount. longAmount here...

TOKEN CAN BE LOCKED WHEN THE _mint function is called to mint token to a contract that does not support the ERC1155

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Use safeMint intead of mint. The mint function of the TimeswapV2Token.solL110 calls the mint function of the ERC1155. If the token receiver is a contract that does not support ERC1155, the token is locked. Proof of Concept see: If the recipient contract...

ERC1155Enumerable._removeTokenEnumeration() checks the removal condition wrongly.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ERC1155Enumerable.removeTokenEnumeration checks the removal condition wrongly. As a result, the tokens with 0 total supply won't be removed from allTokens array at all. Proof of Concept removeTokenEnumeration checks the removal condition like below when ...

The transferFeesFrom function does not check if the "from" address is the actual owner of the position before transferring the fees.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The code Doesn't check if the from address is the owner of the position before transferring the fees. If the from address is not the owner of the position, an attacker could potentially transfer fees from another user's position without their permission...

Upgraded Q -> M from #374 [1674664049404]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 374 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-03 WETHGateway.repayETH will revert if msg.value paybackAmount In the repayETH function, paybackAmount eth will be deposit to WETH contract to get paybackAmount weth back. WETH.depositvalue: paybackAmount; And then...

Adversary can abuse a quirk of compound redemption to manipulate the underlying exchange rate and maliciously disable cToken collaterals

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Adversary can maliciously disable cToken collateral to cause loss to rToken during restructuring Proof of Concept if referencePrice 0: / if redeemTokensIn 0 / We calculate the exchange rate and the amount of underlying to be redeemed: redeemTokens =...

commitment.lienRequest.strategy.vault can be dffierent from the actual vault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol doesn't check that commitment.lienRequest.strategy.vault is equal to the actual vault. The problem with this is that commitment.lienRequest.strategy.vault and vault might be using 2 different tokens. The borrower gets the token of the actual...

settleAuction() Check for status errors

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ClearingHouse.safeTransferFrom to execute successfully even if there is no bid Proof of Concept settleAuction is called at the end of the auction and will check if the status is legal function settleAuctionuint256 collateralId public if...

Manipulate the price per share value and unfair share of future users' deposits'

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Most of the share based vault implementation will face this issue. The vault is based on the ERC4626 where the shares are calculated based on the deposit value. By depositing large amount as initial deposit, initial depositor can influence the future...

Upgradable liberty

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Instead of using @openzeppelin/contracts, use the upgradable liberty for contracts that should be able to be upgraded. This is the library that should be used :@openzeppelin/contracts-upgradeable Proof of Concept For more info have a look at this resourc...

If completeRedemptions is called multiple times to redeem one epoch, the complex calculation may result in incorrect redemptions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When MANAGERADMIN calls the completeRedemptions function, it requires that both redeemers and refundees have KYC. If the redeemer loses KYC, the redeemer's address will not appear in redeemers and refundees, otherwise completeRedemptions will fail...

Malleable value in S

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Signature Proof of Concept ECDSA's malleability can be used to create new signatures under specific conditions. This post explores how serious these attacks can be. Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps Recomendation is to be added additional check for...

KYC signature can be reused to regain KYC status

Lines of code Vulnerability details The function addKYCAddressViaSignature of the KYCRegistry contract allows a user to be granted a KYC status using a signature provided by Ondo. The function validates that the signer has the corresponding role for the requirement group and adds the user to the...

Attacker can take control over each SmartAccount proxy and steal all users' funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Attacker can take control over each SmartAccount proxy and steal all users' funds Impact All users' funds can be stolen by a single attacker tx gas cost only Proof of Concept There are 2 main reasons for this vulnerability: The .checkSignatures in...

TokenggAVAX.sol : First depositor can break minting of shares

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A well known attack vector for almost all shares based liquidity pool contracts, where an early user can manipulate the price per share and profit from late users' deposits because of the precision loss caused by the rather large value of price per share...

GGP slashing mechanism is incomplete.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The protocol docs mentions that "If the validator is failing at their duties, their GGP will be slashed and used to compensate the loss to our Liquid Stakers." But the actual implementation of the Staking.slashGGP function is very different from the abov...

getStakers() and getMinipools() could return wrong values (Access Control)

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Staking.sol and MinipoolManager.sol contracts use the eternal storage pattern. The contracts are a key-value store that all protocol contracts can write to and read. more info: Functions getStakers.staking and getMinipools.MinipoolManager are implemented...

Liquidation logic is incorrect in some conditions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Because purchaseLiquidationAuctionNFT function clears remaining debt of debtor if he has no more collateral, it's possible that when 2 auctions exists in same time, liquidation logic will not work properly and debt will be nullified before last auction i...

PUNK does not conform to ERC721 standard hence safeTransferFrom from solmate does not work

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since protocol's intended NFT target is PUNK currently, the protocol will be hugely affected. Proof of Concept Attempts to transfer the NFT is done in 2 places. 1. removeCollateral 2. purchaseNFT Firstly, this means that once a collateral is added to the...

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:...

GroupBuy can be drained of all ETH.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description purchase in GroupBuy faciilitates the purchasing of an NFT after enough contributions were gathered. Another report titled "Attacker can steal the amount collected so far in the GroupBuy for NFT purchase" describes a high impact bug in purchase. It ...

xyk invariant does not hold after calls to buy() and sell()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Functions buyQuote and sellQuote are defined like this in Pair.sol: /// @notice The amount of base tokens required to buy a given amount of fractional tokens. /// @dev Calculated using the xyk invariant and a 30bps fee. /// @param outputAmount The amount...

Missing approval check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The lpToken.mint function is called with the msg.sender as the recipient, but there is no check to ensure that the sender has approved the contract to transfer the fractional tokens on their behalf. If the lptoken.mint function is missing a che...

Users that send funds at a price lower than the current low bid have the funds locked

Lines of code Vulnerability details If a user contributes funds after there is no more supply left, and they don't provide a price higher than the current minimum bid, they will be unable to withdraw their funds while the NFT remains unbought. Impact Ether becomes stuck until and unless the NFT i...

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...

After the redrawing the winner can lose his NFT for the Admin

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner can manipulate the raffle by deprivation of a specific address winner Proof of Concept Please copy the following POC on VRFNFTRandomDraw.t.sol function testadminRedrawingandReclaimnft public address winner = address0x1337; address winner2 =...

Function fulfillRandomWords in VRFNFTRandomDraw contract must not revert

Lines of code Vulnerability details The VRFNFTRandomDraw contract implements the Chainlink VFR feature to pull random data to select the raffle winner. As per their security guidelines the implementation of the fulfillRandomWords function must not revert. Impact If the fulfillRandomWords function...

LOWER BOUNDARY OF DRAWING TOKEN RANGE IS TOO LOW

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The current logic in VRFNFTRandomDraw.sol could lead to undesirable edge cases due to allowing the lower limit of the drawing token range to be as low as 2. It could lead to a long drag before the raffle could end or cancel if one of the drawing tokens i...

Malicious ChainLink's VRF manager can decide to not whitelist VRFNFTRandomDraw or brick ongoing raffles

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ChainLinks VRF manager has priviledged position, as all VRFNFTRandomDraw instances share the same VRFCoordinatorV2 address, and have to be whitelisted in order to be able to send requestRandomWords function. There is centralization risk in this case, tha...

The owner can swap the proxy implementation with a malicious one

Lines of code Vulnerability details The owner of VRFNFTRandomDrawFactory.sol could swap the current implementation with a malicious one at any moment, without a waiting period. Impact The worse case scenario is one in which the private key of the contract owner gets stolen. In this case the owner...

DoS after creating 100 raffles under one subscriptionID

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If a user adds new consumer, function VRFCoordinatorV2::addConsumer is called: function addConsumeruint64 subId, address consumer external override onlySubOwnersubId nonReentrant // Already maxed, cannot add any more consumers. if...

ERC20 approvals may need to be set to 0 beforehand

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are some instances where there is an ERC20 approval for a max uint256 amount. ERC20 tokens such as USDT require the address allowance to be set to 0 beforehand, so this would cause reverts for those tokens. Proof of Concept -Token such as USDT gets...

reentrancy

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If an attacker were able to successfully exploit a reentrancy vulnerability in this contract, they could potentially cause the contract to enter an infinite loop, consuming all available gas and rendering it unusable. This could result in financial losse...

Attacker can set anyone as the tokenSender role

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The setTokenSender function which is the function that is responsible to set the token sender role is made public with no access control, which makes attacker escalate his privileges to the token sender role Proof of Concept truffle console --networkId 5...

Router can perform swaps, add/remove liquidity to pools that do not belong to the protocol.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users can lose their funds PoC In UniswapV3 decodeFirstPool returns the tuple address tokenOut, address tokenIn, uint24 fee . From there it lookups the corresponding pool address with getPooltokenIn, tokenOut, fee which may not exist. See However, in you...

Insufficient support for fee-on-transfer type of ERC20

Lines of code Vulnerability details Some ERC20 token implementations have a fee that is charged on each token transfer. This means that the transferred amount isn't exactly what the receiver will get. A call to IERC20token.transferrecipient, 100 with a fee-on-transfer FOT of 5% will entitle the...

Permanent freeze of yield when TokenSender rewards bank is depleted and deposit or withdraw is called.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In collateral deposit and withdraw flow, a fee is calculated as a percentage of user's requested amount. It is passed to the DepositHook and WithdrawHook, for example in deposit: uint256 amountAfterFee = amount - fee; if addressdepositHook != addres...

Not possible to finish LPDA after endTime

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details The only way to finish the sale is when newId == temp.finalId, making not possible to finish LPDA even if the endTime is already over POC There isn't any function to finalize the LPDA sale even if already finished the sale, the only way to...

saleReceiver and feeReceiver can steal refunds after sale has ended

Lines of code Vulnerability details First, lets go over how a buy happens. A buyer can buy NFTs at a higher price and then once the auction ends they can use refund to return the over payments. The effect is that they bought the NFTs at the lowest price Lowest Price Dutch Auction. Now, let's move...

Dutch auction getPrice() formula can lead to price reaching 0 and eventually reverting and locking the function.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In the function getPrice the current price is calculated by taking the start price and subtracting the product of dropPersecond and time elapsed. start price - dropPreSecond timeElapsed. The issue with this is that given the right inputs for dropPerSecon...

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

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact call should be used instead of transfer on an address payable Proof of Concept The use of the deprecated transfer function for an address will inevitably make the transaction fail when: 1. The claimer smart contract does not implement a payable function...

Possible negative price on LPDA causes sale and refund mechanism to not working

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Possible negative price on LPDA causes sale and refund mechanism to not working Proof of Concept function getPrice public view returns uint256 Sale memory temp = sale; uint256 start, uint256 end = temp.startTime, temp.endTime; if block.timestamp...