Quotetoken can be address(0) or any EOA and still allow auctions and bids to be created

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact createAuction in SizeSealed.sol performs no validation of the auction parameters AuctionParameters sent to it and will allow a Seller to create an auction with an ERC20 quoteToken of address0 putting at risk the baseToken that has real value. In addition...

Malicious seller can finalize his/her auction without changing data.lowestQuote , then auction's state will not be updated to States.finalized and this seller can repeat finalize or cancel auction to steal tokens from contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerable details In contract, an auction's state will beStates.Finalized if data.lowestQuote of this auction is different from typeuint128.max. L33-34 data.lowestQuote is assigned to equal clearingQuote when seller finalize auction. L238 This value will be...

Draining baseToken from contract by calling finalize function multiple times

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Draining baseToken from SizeSealed contract by calling finalize function multiple times Proof of Concept The finalize function can be called multiple times by providing clearingQuote to typeuint128.max. Currently inside finalize function there is no chec...

Refinalization with theft of funds from other auctions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Description There is a finalize function in the SizeSealed smart contract. The function traverses the array of the bids sorted by price descending. There is a prevention of the refinalization by the modifier atStateidToAuctionauctionId,...

Solmate's safeTransfer function does not check the existence of the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Miscalculation of transferred funds and finally, loss of funds Proof of Concept Solmate's safeTransfer and safeTransferFrom functions do not check the ext code size of the address of the recipient and so, it may lead to a miscalculation of funds as it...

Hacker can front-run the L2 ERC20 token deployment.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact hacker can front-run the L2 ERC20 token deployment to block L2 ERC20 token finalizeDeposit Proof of Concept I intend to prove this piece of code is front-runnable by hacker: /// @notice Finalize the deposit and mint funds /// @param l1Sender The account...

A single point of failure is not acceptable for this project

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The pause function on WardenPledge.sol has a single point of failure and onlyOwner can stop all project. Owner is not behind a multisig and changes are not behind a timelock.This information hasnt got in documents Even if protocol admins/developers are n...

recoverERC20 can drain user's funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details recoverERC20 function is deployed so users who have accidently sent erc20 tokens to the contract be able to recover them. recoverERC20 uses ifminAmountRewardTokentoken != 0 revert Errors.CannotRecoverToken; to check if token was set to one of the RewardTokens o...

Owner can bypass ERC20 recovery restrictions and take all rewards

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is a function that is intended to be used to recover ERC20 tokens that were sent to the WardenPledge contract by accident. The function is only usable by the owner and contains a check that no tokens can be taken which are currently whitelisted as...

Voting Power double count when the pledge.receiver delegates to their own pledge.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact When a pledge is created via the createPledge function, the pledge creator is allowed to select the receiver address which will receive the boost delegation. Additionally, targetVotes parametr is selected which is the maximum target of votes the receiver...

_pledge function has mathematical calculation error

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the mathematical formula is incorrect, which will lead to protocol insolvency Proof of Concept the original code is : uint256 slope = amount / boostDuration; uint256 bias = slope boostDuration; // Rewards are set in the Pledge as reward/veToken/sec // To...

# Divide before multiply affects precision

Lines of code Vulnerability details Divide before multiply affects precision Impact Solidity integer division might truncate. As a result, performing multiplication before division can sometimes avoid loss of precision. Details In general, this is a problem due to precision. In this case, it also...

Missing support of non-standart ERC20

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details Description In functions of PA1D and HolographOperator contracts there is logic relying on the fact that tokens implemented ERC20 standard especially, that transfer and transferFrom functions of the tokens returns bool result. But in...

_payoutEth() calculates balance with an offset, always leaving dust ETH in the contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Payout recipients can call getEthPayout to transfer the ETH balance of the contract to all payout recipients. This function makes an internal call to payoutEth, which sends the payment to the recipients based on their associated bp The issue is that the balance...

Upgraded Q -> M from 796 [1666363133014]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 796 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑01 Use of transferFrom rather than safeTransferFrom for NFTs in will lead to the loss of NFTs The EIP-721 standard says the following about transferFrom: /// @notice Transfer ownership of an NFT -- THE CALLER ...

Signature malleability not protected against

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability details OpenZeppelin has a vulnerability in versions lower than 4.7.3, which can be exploited by an attacker. The project uses a vulnerable version ECDSA signature malleability package.jsonL27-L28 package.jsonL27-L28 : "@openzeppelin/contracts":...

Permanent lockup of tokens without recovery possible

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The callhook for whitelisted contracts adds an additional layer of complexity that can have multiple points of failure. If the execution of L2GraphTokenGateway.finalizeInboundTransfer fails indefinitely, there is currently no way to recover the...

Use safeTransferFrom instead of transferFrom()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Although ERC20 standard suggests that a transfer should return true on success, there are tokens that doesn't comply with this. Therefore, the transferFrom call might cause silent failures and will affect the token accounting in this contract. Proof of...

The arithmetic operator can overflow

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is possible to cause an integer overflow or underflow in the arithmetic operation. Description An overflow/underflow happens when an arithmetic operation reaches the maximum or minimum size of a type. For instance if a number is stored in the uint8...

Buyers will lose an amount of their funds for only one ERC115 token

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact By using StandardPolicyERC1155.sol as a matchingPolicy for the order. The buyer will transfer an amount of funds ETH or WETH for 2 or more tokens, but he will receive only 1 token. Proof of Concept in case the buyer has set Input.Order.amount 1. Let’s sa...

Incorrect implementation of the MerkleVerifier.sol library

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The MerkleVerifier results in an incorrect verification of the Merkle Tree. Description Using a simple test case from and deploying the contracts with MerkleVerifier.sol. We can see that the results differs when attempting to verify the Merkle Tree. Test...

ExecutionDelegate can approve arbitrary calling contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Owner can steal users' funds and tokens. Proof of Concept The owner of ExecutionDelegate can approve any contract to call it, e.g. a malicious contract which can then drain all funds and tokens approved by users to ExecutionDelegate. Users should only...

revokeApproval() only work with WETH

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact User can invoke execute successfully even if revokedApprovalmsg.sender == true Proof of Concept If buyer did invoke revokeApproval it only block matching the orders if paymentToken == WETH but if the paymentToken == address0 the buyer could invoke execut...

Critical matching policy logic is unenforced

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Malicious order matching. Proof of Concept When being executed two orders are matched using custom matching policies. Certain checks are critical for every order matching. Currently these checks would have to be implemented in the matching policies...

Unused slippage params

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Unused slippage params. function outboundTransfer in L2GraphTokenGateway both L1 and L2 do not use slippage parameters., making it susceptible to sandwich attacks / MEV. Proof of Concept 'uint256, // unused on L2 uint256, // unused on L2' Tools Used...

Requiring Timelock For Setter Functions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Vulnerability Details We noticed that the following owner-privileged setter functions can update important state variables without a time delay. 1. setExecutionDelegate function of the BlurExchange contract L215 - 222 in code snippet 1 2. setPolicyManager...

Griefing of execute transaction sender

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description In function execute from BlurExchange contract there is a call of executeTokenTransfer function. The last one contains the following logic: function executeTokenTransfer address collection, address from, address to, uint256 tokenId, uint256 amount,...

Unchecked transfer/transferFrom return can lead to protocol lose of funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It is good to add a require statement that checks the return value of token transfers or to use something like OpenZeppelin's safeTransfer/safeTransferFrom unless one is sure the given token reverts in case of a failure. Failure to do so will cause silen...

Upgraded Q -> M from 193 [1665109261242]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 193 as Medium risk. The relevant finding follows: --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All reactions...

Use of globalState.unlocked state change outside lock modifier allows for Re-entrancy which would cause huge loss to pool

Lines of code Vulnerability details I guess I can put this into one report since the issue affects two seperate functions in a contract. Impact The functions AlgebraPool.swap and AlgebraPool.swapSupportingFeeOnInputTokens attempt to not use the lock modifier to update the globalState.unlocked sta...

FLASH() FUNCTION HAS STATE UPDATES AFTER A CALLBACK TO MSG.SENDER

Lines of code Vulnerability details In AlgebraPool.sol, the flash function has a callback to the msg.sender in the middle of the function while there are still updates to state that take place after the callback. The lock modifier guards against reentrancy but not against cross function reentranc...

IntegerOverflow Underflow on AdaptiveFee

Lines of code Vulnerability details The AdaptiveFee uses raw calculation on all functions which are potentially vulnerable to integer Overflow and Underflow. Recommended Mitigation Steps Use Safemath library or Upgrade contract to solidity version above 0.8.0 --- The text was updated successfully...

Possible lost msg.value

Lines of code Vulnerability details In call submit can will send value and the asset can be an ERC20!= address0, if frxETHMinter.sol contract receive this call the fouds will lost. Recommended Mitigation Steps In frxETHMinter, submit function: Check if the msg.value is zero when the asset is...

A mistake made by the Minters can result in minting tokens to a wrong address or a zero address.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Tokens can be minted to a wrong address. Proof of Concept The function mintermint is used by the Minters, to mint tokens to the users that successfully used the functions submitAndDeposit, submit and submitAndGive. However there is no check in mintermint...

Some users may not be able to withdraw till the end of the rewardsCycle, due to possible underflow in the function beforeWithdraw()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In xERC4626.sol If an underflow occur in the function beforeWithdraw, some users may not be able to withdraw till the end of the rewardsCycle. storedTotalAssets is a cached value of total assets, which will only include the unlockedRewards, when the whol...

DoS With Block Gas Limit

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Modifying an array of unknown size, that increases in size over time in the function createClaimUnchecked can lead to Deniel of Service. Proof of Concept When smart contracts are deployed or functions inside them are called, the execution of these action...

Mistakenly use of arithmetic operation can lead to loss

Lines of code Vulnerability details Mistakenly use of arithmetic operation can lead to loss Description Calculating the values can somewhat correct to what you need but this is a great mistake of calculation which should be overcomed .Now why should this be overcomed? Since in Solidity, the order...

this is a test

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 --- The...

Lack of check if token is a contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact solmate won't check if the token is a contract or not. It's possible for an attacker to the create a vault for a non existing token with a deterministic address. The problem occurs if the token gets deployed later, and another user tries to use this toke...

ERC1155.isApprovedForAll(owner, receiver) logic means it is possible for an approved receiver to withdraw more shares than expected

Lines of code Vulnerability details In the Readme, it is mentioned a receiver can call withdraw on behalf of the shares owner we accept deposits and withdraws on behalf of other users, by using approve ERC1155 functions on withdraw, and recipient/owner params inside both deposit/withdraw function...

Problems with PegOracle

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There are at least a few problems with the PegOracle. I am grouping them into one submission because some of them are not that significant but the last one I believe deserves a higher severity. 1. Function latestRoundData queries getOracle2Price but...

Missing access Control to burnFeiHeld function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact burnFeiHeld hasn't any owner modifier , so everybody run it Proof of Concept Provide direct links to all referenced code in GitHub. Add screenshots, logs, or any other relevant proof that illustrates the concept. function burnFeiHeld external uint256...

Contract TribeRedeemer: redeemBase should has setter function

Lines of code Vulnerability details 2022-09-tribe Contract TribeRedeemer: redeemBase should has setter function tags: c4, 2022-09-tribe, high Affected code Impact Contract TribeRedeemer doesn't have setter function for redeemBase. So redeemBase can not be adjusted if it is neccesary. Contract wil...

possbile griefing using replay attack

Lines of code Vulnerability details users who want to user redeem function has to set a value for amountIn this value cant be more than redeemBase , which is set in contract's constructor. the value of redeemBase will decrease in case of a successful call of redeem . while contract's solidity...

Mint function on the simplefeidaiPSM() might DOS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact While a user call mint function it imediately mint fei token by supplying DAI and when a user redeem a token the fei will be transfered to this contract without burning the fei token, this could lead DOS if the total supply of the fei token reach the...

FEI Minter can drain SimpleFeiDaiPSM contract DAI balance

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The FEI token contract contain a mint function which allow the MINTER to mint a given amount of FEI tokens to any account including his own address. So the Minter can mint to his own account an amount of FEI tokens equivalent to the SimpleFeiDaiPSM...

Redeem fails when DAI is not enough

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In SimpleFeiDaiPSM.sol, redeem fails when DAI amount of the contract is less than input FEI amount. But it can succeed if minAmountOut is less than the DAI amount of the contract. Proof of Concept Let us say amountFeiIn DAI amount of SimpleFeiDaiPSM...

an attacker can take out flash loan and cause users not to be able to redeem their tokens because of undflow or divsion by zero

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact An attacker can take out a flash loan and cause the state variable redeemBase=1 causing users who call this function to get dosed and since users can't call this function after the attacker makes the reedem function unuseable which can cause funds to be...

reserve0CumulativeLast is incorrectly calculated

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact It was observed that both reserve0CumulativeLast and reserve1CumulativeLast are incorrectly calculated. Reference can be taken from Uniswap contract which calculates it correctly at Proof of Concept 1. The reserve0CumulativeLast is currently calculated i...

Newton's iteration convergence might not converge

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact In getAmountOut for stable pair, Newton's method is used, however there is no check for the solution convergence. The numerical stability for Newton's method only applies to initial value close enough to the real solution. If the iteration fail to...