overflow in buy function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact the function doesn't check if the input is more the supply Proof of Concept the function doesn't have any condition check of amount Tools Used manually Recommended Mitigation Steps check the input for maximum or requirement for max supply --- The text wa...

Ether can be lost in LPDA contract if sale.dropPerSecond is set improperly

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Function createLPDASale requires only sale.dropPerSecond 0 but if sale.dropPerSecond sale.startPrice / sale.endTime - sale.startTime function getPrice will revert except the case when all editions are sold before reaching negative price. Therefore, the b...

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...

MarketplaceLogic.sol doesn't support ERC20 Tokens with fee on transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details MarketplaceLogic.sol doesn't support ERC20 Tokens with fee on transfer Summary There are ERC20 tokens with transfer at fees. For checking if the transferred amount is the same as expected, code already compares balanceOf before and balanceOf after transfer...

Anyone can prevent themselves from being liquidated as long as they hold one of the supported NFTs

Lines of code Vulnerability details Contrary to what the function comments say, removeFeeder is able to be called by anyone, not just the owner. By removing all feeders i.e. floor twap price oracle keepers, a malicious user can cause all queries for the price of NFTs reliant on the NFTFloorOracle...

Upgraded Q -> M from #454 [1670445333683]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 454 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L‑01 Don't use payable.transfer/payable.send The use of payable.transfer is heavily frowned upon because it can lead to the locking of funds. The transfer call requires that the recipient is either an EOA account, or...

Potential security issues in CallLib solidity library

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description: The CallLib solidity library contains several potential security issues that could be exploited by attackers. Issue 1: The executeCalls function does not check if the sender parameter is the contract owner before allowing the calls to be executed...

ProcessedCalls event missing transaction hash

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract is missing the txHash parameter in the ProcessedCalls event. Impact The txHash is used to identify the transaction that was processed. Without this parameter, it will be impossible to know which transaction was...

Relayer/executor-already-set Error in CrossChainRelayerArbitrum Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Summary The setExecutor function in the CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract improperly reverts when the executor variable has already been set. Impact This bug could prevent the CrossChainRelayerArbitrum contract from properly setting the executor variable,...

Cross-chain request does not have expiration time

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Cross-chain request does not have expiration time Proof of Concept In the current implementation, a caller in source chain can perform a relayer call to starts a cross-chain request. But it is not clearly when the executor will be executing the...

CrossChainExecutorPolygon does not implement the executeCalls function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The CrossChainExecutor contracts in the codebase are meant to follow the CrossChainExecutor interface as defined in EIP-5164. Each L2 network specific CrossChainExecutor contract is also expected to inherit and follow the ICrossChainExecutor interface...

MINTING OF NFT AT WILL

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact register is an unrestricted public function where any new msg.sender is going to get through the modifier onlyUnregistered. With a non-zero recipient argument passed into the function, a new NFT is going to be minted to the recipient. Consequently, an...

Possible double spending issue for PirexERC4626 vault

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Solmate's ERC20 does not provide option to increase/decrease allowance, and only option to do so is by setting it via approve - which sets this amount directly. This poses a problem of double spending, when a user want to check current allowance, and bad...

PirexERC4626 and PirexGmx doesn't support erc20 tokens with fee on transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details PirexERC4626 and PirexGmx doesn't support erc20 tokens with fee on transfer Vulnerability details There are ERC20 tokens that charge fee for every transfer / transferFrom. Different functions assumes assumes that the received amount is the same as the transfer...

A registered contract won't earn fees if _recipient is a fresh address

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Users might fall victims of a false positive: if they use a fresh account as an NFT recipient during contract registration, the transaction won't revert, but the registered contract will never earn fees for the token holder. And since a contract can be...

There is no re-register o re-assign function

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is no re-register or re-assign option for the smart contracts. Let's assume a smart contract is registered either through the register function with a new NFT minted or the assign function to an existing NFT. However, if somehow, the NFT is burned ...

Possible lost msg.value in function distributeFees

Lines of code Vulnerability details Author: rotcivegaf Impact The function distributeFees don't checks if the tokenId exists and if the owner send value to the an non-exists tokenId, this one will stuck in the contract until the tokenId will minted, and take by the owner of the minted token that...

value can be burned in burnLPToken but nothing withdrawn

Lines of code Vulnerability details value can be burned in burnLPToken but nothing withdrawn Summary If initial amount is not big enough, value can get truncated by division of 24 ether and therefore be 0 the redemptionValue. Therefore, this value to be withdrawn would be lost. PoC // redeem savE...

bringUnusedETHBackIntoGiantPool in GiantSavETHVaultPool can be used to steal LPTokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact real LPTokens can be transferred out of GiantSavETHVaultPool through fake savETHVaults provided by an attacker. Proof of Concept bringUnusedETHBackIntoGiantPool takes in savETHVaults, lpTokens, and burns certain amount olpTokens. The tokens are thoroughl...

bringUnusedETHBackIntoGiantPool in GiantMevAndFeesPool can be used to steal LPTokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact real LPTokens can be transferred out of GiantMevAndFeesPool through fake stakingFundsVaults provided by an attacker. Proof of Concept bringUnusedETHBackIntoGiantPool takes in stakingFundsVaults, oldLPTokens, newLPTokens and rotate amounts from old to new...

Unchecked transfer

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The return value of an external transfer/transferFrom call is not checked Proof of Concept you can check Vulnerability in code here: Tools Used Recommended Mitigation Steps Use SafeERC20, or ensure that the transfer/transferFrom return value is checked...

Upgraded Q -> M from #348 [1668468155840]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 348 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L01 Wrong parameter order inside beforeTokenTransfer in LBtoken::burn call should be beforeTokenTransferaccount, address0, id, amount; --- The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: All...

Recipients Can Steal Remaining ETH from Exchange

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact This vulnerability allows recipients to reenter the Exchange contract, stealing remaining ETH. When a batch of orders are matched using the bulkExecute method a malicious recipient of assets may reenter the bulkExecute method, stealing ETH that would've...

Cross-functional re-entrancy resulting in stealing any additional/extra ether sent by the execute() 's caller

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The contract Exchange.sol has execute function which can be called by anyone to execute a single buy and sell order. The function calls execute then returnDust. The latter sends the unrequired ether back to the caller. However, a malicious actor could...

#bulkExecute() can reenter to steal funds

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ExchangebulkExecute can reenter, and internal execution of delegatecall is allowed to fail, not revert, malicious users can reenter to steal funds Proof of Concept Assumptions: There is a malicious user alice,with NFT for sale, paid through eth If user b...

Upgraded Q -> M from #474 [1668467584757]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 474 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: L-01 Flashloan fee is not validated flashLoanFee is determined at LBFactory's constructor as; constructoraddress feeRecipient, uint256 flashLoanFee setFeeRecipientfeeRecipient; flashLoanFee = flashLoanFee; emit...

Broken Upgradable Logic in Pool.sol

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The Pool smart contract allows a user to predeposit ETH so that it can be used when a seller takes their bid. It uses an ERC1967 proxy pattern and only the exchange contract is permitted to make transfers. The smart contract inherits the...

Native funds on the aggregator contract balance is a free grab

Lines of code Vulnerability details Native funds on the aggregator contract balance is a free grabLooksRareAggregator's execute returns the native balance of the contract to the caller even when nothing was provided with the call. This happens when LooksRareAggregator's execute is called directly...

The attacker can steal the ETH of users that wanted to buy an NFT by sandwiching the victim transaction.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The attacker can steal the ETH of users that wanted to buy an NFT by sandwiching the victim transaction. Proof of Concept In non-atomic some of the orders could fail and funds should return and the end of execute function - . But the returnETHIfAny...

The owner of the contract can broke the storage of the LooksRareAggregator contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact The owner of the contract can broke the storage of the LooksRareAggregator contract Proof of Concept The addFunction function - can be called by the owner to to set proxy address and function selector for the function to be called inside this proxy. This...

Upgraded Q -> M from #272 [1668215320788]

Judge has assessed an item in Issue 272 as M risk. The relevant finding follows: Inaccurate comment can be misleading. The following retrievePledgeRewards function is for retrieving the non-distributed rewards from an expired pledge, not just a closed pledge. Calling this function for a pledge th...

The bulkExecute function does not bypass failed executions.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Detailed description of the impact of this finding. According to the documentation, "Add bulk execute function; attempted executions that fail should be bypassed". However, the implementation of bulkExecute does not conform to this spec. Fail executions...

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

Lines of code Vulnerability details 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. 2. The claimer smart contract does implement a payable fallback whic...

Borrower can put their address when submiting addCredit() which can make the lender not be able to withdraw tokens

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact when calling addCredit by borrower, they can choose to put in their address as the lender instead of the actuall lender. this can bring problems later on when the lender is trying to withdraw funds from the contract. they wont be able to withdraw the fun...

Using keccak256(abi.encoded()) can result in collisions

Lines of code Vulnerability details Proof of Concept The code in mutualConsent makes use of keccak256abi.encodePacked but this can result in a collision when the arguments of abi.encodePacked are aligned in a way that gives the same result. Impact Having hash collisions in mutualConsent...

Governor ownership can be lost because of not sanity check

Lines of code Vulnerability details Governor ownership can be lost because of no checks Impact Sanity checks are important to not affect reputation / flows and users of the protocol when a mistake is done. 0 address should be checked for important address assignments in this case, only done in th...

No commitment to data passed as input to the init contract during the execution of the diamond cut proposal

Lines of code Vulnerability details Description There is a function executeDiamondCutProposal in the DiamondCutFacet contract. It checks that proposal data passed as input to this call is equal to the data that is declared when the creation of this proposal using the following logic: require...

WHEN EVER CALLING bridgeMint OR bridgeBurn FUNCTIONS NEED TO CHECK THE STATUS OF THE TRANSACTIONS

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If not checking the status of the bridgeMint and bridgeBurn functions we don't know the the transactions are success or not. If function breaks any of the reasons we don't what happened and what is the status of the transactions. there is no solutions...

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...

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...

Denial of service from malicious bidder by filling up the bid index up until 1000

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Denial of service from malicious bidder by filling up the bid index up until 1000 Proof of Concept Initially inside bid function there is a check condition if bidIndex = 1000 then it will revert, so this will limit the size of bid created by bidder to...

Arbitrage Opportunity for Non-Sellers

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Non-sellers can flood the system with arbitrage auctions. Proof of Concept The seller can wait until 1 instant minute? before the end of the auction. Now the seller places a bid a couple percent above the current market price, enough to cover the seller'...

Attacker can steal any funds in the contract by state confusion (no preconditions)

Lines of code Vulnerability details HIGH: Attacker can steal any funds in the contract by state confusion no preconditions LOC: Description Auctions in SIZE can be in one of several states, as checked in the atState modifier: modifier atStateAuction storage a, States state if block.timestamp...

Multi Step upgrades introduce security risk

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact If Governor upgrades the system using executeDiamondCutProposal function then freezing is removed. This could be a problem where Governor was still not ready to make freezable facet available as shown in POC Proof of Concept 1. Governor discovers a...

Seller can stole users assets by create and then cancel the auction

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Seller can stole users assets by create and cancel auction Proof of Concept Seller can create an auction, then wait for people to participate in auction bidding, finally the seller cancel the auction and get the users assets. This scenario can happen wit...

Malicious seller can steal from bidders.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact A seller can cancel the auction after finalize and thus can steal money from the bidders and get their original baseToken back. POC When an auction is started the value of a.data.lowestQuote is set as typeuint128.max here . In the atState function this...

Return value of ecMul() not checked in encryptMessage()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact ecMul returns 1,1 if failed or with invalid parameters. But encryptMessage does not check for the return value of ecMul. If there is mistake of the private key or public key, the encrypted message will be useless and potentially fail the auction. Proof o...

Seller can steal all the bid fund by repeatedly calling finalize()

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Bidders' fund will be stolen by malicious seller, they can not get refund. Proof of Concept In finalize, FinalizeData memory data is local, which means in each call, data is re-initialized. By calling finalize multiple times, a malicious seller can get t...

No incentive mechanism for allowed senders to call finalizeWithdrawal on behalf of withdrawers.

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact Since finalizeWithdrawal is a permissioned function, if there are no mechanism in place for allowed senders to trigger it, withdrawers would not able to receive their funds in a timely fashion. Proof of Concept The withdrawal functions such...

Double spending risk in L1 Bridge Contract

Lines of code Vulnerability details Impact There is double spending risk in L1 Bridge Contract. The user may call claimFailedDeposit to release their locked fund while they still have token balance in L2 network. Proof of Concept Let us focus on the L1ERC20Bridge.sol /// @dev Withdraw funds from...